Skip to main content

Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 5

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

SECTION 3.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, subsection (3), lines 6 and 7, to delete paragraph (b).

We are still dealing with section 3 of the Bill and the import of this amendment is to delete subsection (3) (f). I do not want to go over the same ground again because we have covered it in very great detail. I seek invariably and repeatedly to delimit the powers of this Minister. This Minister invariably and increasingly seeks to thwart that and drag unto himself more and more powers. The specifics of this, the subsection which I seek to delete, would confer on the Minister the power to make regulations containing different provisions in relation to different local authorities. It is very much linked to the previous amendment. On the last occasion I was objecting to his power to make specific arrangements right down to the subsections for local authorities, to determine the colour of paint on one side of the street, if he was so minded.

The Minister may say that of course he will never use all this power that he is clutching to himself. I quoted this morning ample evidence of predecessors in his own party who made very broad and sweeping commitments to the electorate in the past only to find afterwards they were hollow. I am afraid the same thing could well be true in this case. It is better to be safe than sorry. I see no reason why this series of sweeping powers should be vested solely in the Minister and his officials. I will not make the argument at length because we have exhausted the consistent view of this House on this matter.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

The Minister is not seeking more power, just the necessary power to enable what the Deputy wishes to see happen.

Mr. Howlin

Will the Minister give specific examples of provisions that would relate differently to different local authorities?

Mr. Flynn

I thought the matter was terminated before the adjournment in relation to the previous amendment. There was one particular item that I should have mentioned. In the planning legislation area one requires different provisions to deal with different local authorities because of differences in the planning law as it applies to different authorities. One example is material change that attaches to planning in so far as the Schedules to the 1963 Act dealing with agricultural processes and agricultural activities, like buildings in an agricultural area, do not necessarily apply in an urban area. There are differences attached even in planning law to the different types of authorities. This is just an example. There are also some differences in the context of the Abattoirs Act dealing with the functions of different local authorities.

Mr. Howlin

For example?

Mr. Flynn

There are areas where a Minister needs to address himself specifically in a different way to different sized authorities and to different functions that they might have. For that reason it is necessary to have the provision.

Mr. Gilmore

Is it not the case that in the two examples the Minister has just cited in relation to the Planning Acts and the Abattoirs Act, the 1963 Planning Act does give the Minister the power to make regulations in respect of different authorities in the different Schedules of the 1963 Act and that equally the Abbatoirs Act gives the Minister the power to make regulations as they apply differently to different local authorities so that it is not necessary to put that into this Bill? It is already provided for in relation to planning in the Planning Acts and in relation to abattoirs in the Abattoirs Act.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy just asked for examples of existing situations and I gave them.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister did not need the power. That is the point.

Mr. Flynn

There are just different aspects of this legislation where we are restating things but it is good to do it in that way so that the local authority would be familiar with what is required.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister is putting it in and he does not need it.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister has evaded the question again. I did not ask for examples from previous legislation. I asked for examples that will be consequent on this legislation. Why does the Minister need this specific power to enact the Local Government Bill? What particular regulation will the Minister make that will apply in different ways to different local authorities? Both the examples the Minister gave were different statutes that gave him those powers. That is a fine way of doing it. However, from the perspective of this side of the House we want to know specifically what the Minister is going to do. If he will bring in primary legislation to do it, that is grand and we understand that. What I object to is giving the Minister a catch-all power to act as he likes. What does the Minister want this power for? What element of this Bill, when it is enacted, will be applied differently to different local authorities? Let the Minister convince us that he needs this power, but let him not evade the question as he has done repeatedly in relation to the matter of clutching powers to himself.

Mr. Gilmore

You are spoofing, Minister.

Mr. Flynn

It is a general provision that the Minister requires if he needs——

Mr. Howlin

To do what in this case?

Mr. Flynn

——to do something that will not apply generally throughout the whole range of local authorities, depending on their size and so on. I mentioned before lunch that even in the simple area of expenses and chairman's allowances and things like that one has to specify.

Mr. Gilmore

It is in the Bill.

Mr. Flynn

In the normal circumstances it might not apply but if the occasion arises the Minister should have the residual power to enable him to specify in a particular area that it will be different in a certain local authority because of its size, its capacity or the functions the Minister contemplates carrying out. That is a general provision that enables the Minister to do these things. The Deputy is chasing a hare that is of no consequence.

Mr. Howlin

It is very hard to catch up with it because the Minister is not stopping to explain.

Mr. Flynn

I am explaining it to the Deputy. I am giving some examples from the past and examples of what might happen in the future.

Mr. Gilmore

We are chasing a hare, but the hare has retreated into its burrow and we want to try to entice him back out again. All the examples that the Minister has cited so far are already provided for in existing legislation, or separately in this Bill. Neither today nor yesterday, when we dealt with this section, did the Minister come up with a single example of a regulation or an order which it would be necessary for him to make under this section which is not already provided for. What I would like to know is can the Minister give us such an example or, better still, a couple of examples. All the examples the Minister has given us are either already provided for in some section or other of the Bill specifically — councillors' expenses, twinning and all these important things — or the examples today in relation to planning, abattoirs and so on are provided for in separate legislation.

Can the Minister come back to this section and tell us what he wants it for? Can he give us a few examples of how he proposes to use this power? There is no point in asking the House to give the Minister powers to make regulations unless we have some idea what he is going to use the power for. I would certainly like to know that.

Mr. Flynn

It is a standard provision.

Mr. Gilmore

Give us one example.

Mr. Flynn

It is a standard provision. It is in many other Acts of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Howlin

That is no reason.

Mr. Flynn

It is a standard provision and consequently it is there to be used if the Minister decides that he has to use that function in a residual way to control any situation. He is only doing it in the wider public interest. In any legislation there is often a general provision to enable things to happen. That is why it is being put in there.

Mr. Gilmore

There is a difference. In specific legislation dealing with derelict sites or any other issue we know we are dealing with a confined area of activity and we would all have a fair idea of the kind of regulations the Minister would wish to make in such an area. That is perfectly understandable, and it is perfectly understandable to have a general provision in a Bill such as that, but this is different. This is a general provision that seeks to override what local authorities will be doing. The Minister wants the section to be included in the Bill, in the form he has proposed, but so far all Opposition amendments have been rejected by the Minister, with one relatively minor exception and the rest of the amendments will meet the same fate.

The Minister should make a case for this section. It is not good enough for him to say it is a general provision, that he might need it, that he would use it in the public interest, that he would not use it to make people pay water charges, and that he would not use it for this, that, or the other. What is the intention? For what will it be used? To date, the Minister has not provided Members with a single example and I would like to hear some examples.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy will not hear examples. It is not my intention to act in that way. It is not necessary for me to set out one example, 20 examples, or 20,000 examples.

Mr. Gilmore

Try one.

Mr. Flynn

The provision is required to enable the Minister to deal with matters that may arise at some future time when he needs to act in the public interest. The Minister will then have the provision to deal with these matters at that time without having to come back to the House in order to correct a matter and have Members baying that the matter should have been corrected in the first instance. That is what the provision does. This is essential to enable the Minister to pursue the legislation properly and to make it work.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister said we were chasing a hare; I think the hare has just been cornered. The Minister started off by trying to pretend that there were specific requirements for the provision. Each of the four specific illustrations given by the Minister showed us that the provision was unrelated and unnecessary — they were either provided for specifically in sections of this Bill or were the subject of separate legislation in their own right.

The Minister has finally admitted that what he really wants is to have the power to do what he likes after the event. The only veneer he puts on it is to say it has been done before. That is a very poor reason. We are talking about a fundamental piece of so-called reform — and those are the words used by the Minister — that will embrace two most important concepts, the principle of subsidiarity and the breaching of the ultra vires rule to really give powers to local communities and local authorities. The Minister has finally admitted that he has no intention of taking any powers out of the Custom House, that he will keep to himself the final say on anything that might arise. This provision is clear. The Minister wants the final say in case anybody does something he does not like — that is what the provision boils down to. That is the reason we reject this section, and we are pressing our amendments.

Mr. Flynn

Press them.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I wish to weigh in and speak on the issue again. I ask the Minister to consider the reasonable points and concerns expressed from this side of the House. In an explanation a few moments ago the Minister used the words "in order that the Minister can control". That is the substance of the Bill, the Minister wants to control everything. Why should the Minister get involved in matters such as twinning, civic honours or publishing lists of councillors' expenses? Why does he want to get involved in that minutiae? Why not leave some local discretion? There is little enough of that. Why does the Minister want to control everything? In light of the points made on this key section again and again yesterday and today, would the Minister not agree to think overnight about some moderating amendment on Report Stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing an amendment that refers specifically to whether the Minister should have power to make different regulations for different authorities. We should confine ourselves to that. That is what the Chair sees to be the kernel of the matter under discussion. We should confine ourselves to that, and we might make more headway.

Mr. Gilmore

I shall confine myself to the amendment. The Minister has now been invited on successive occasions to explain himself and to explain the provision he seeks. He has been invited to give just one example to illustrate the need for this provision; one example that is not already provided for in other legislation or in some other Part of the Bill. The Minister has failed to give a single example to illustrate the necessity of the provision.

The Minister wants to be able to make regulations that can contain different provisions in relation to different local authorities. That is what we want out of the Bill. Why would the Minister want such a power? Why would he want a power that would enable him to tell Mayo County Council they could do one thing and Dublin County Council or Dublin City Council that they would have to do another? This is a very sinister provision; it is a provision that is wide open to abuse.

We know the Minister is not above treating different local authorities in different ways. For example, I recall the distribution of national lottery funds last year when it seemed to me that if all communities had done as well proportionately as Mayo County Council we would have less to complain about. In the distribution of housing money, again it seems the Minister is aware of some need for housing in Mayo and a lesser need in the rest of the country. The same applies to roads. It would now appear that all roads lead west, and if a road is not on the Minister's route to Castlebar, then its chances of getting attention are fairly remote.

Mr. Howlin

And even if it is.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister already has a fairly good record in making different financial provisions to different local authorities. The next question that has to be asked is, what is the Minister going to do by way of order or regulation? The nub of the matter is that the Minister wants the power to be able to make a regulation if, for example, after the next local elections a local county council, such as Wexford County Council——

Mr. Howlin

A fine body.

Mr. Gilmore

——had a majority formed by a combination of perhaps Deputy Howlin's party, my own party, and Deputy Mitchell's party——

Mr. Howlin

That is a cert.

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Howlin is arranging matters in his own way, or so I have been reading in the local newspapers.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister could make regulations for a council such as that when the composition of the council and the decisions they would make might not be to the liking of his party, that would be different from regulations he would make in regard to a more favoured county council — if there are any left after 27 June — in which his own party have a majority. This provision allows the Minister to do that. The provision is highly partisan. It provides for no equity between local authorities. It allows the Minister to do what he likes and to say to one county council "You do this" and to another county council "You do that". Such a measure is highly irregular. There is no precedent in any legislation for such a provision.

I thought that perhaps the Minister — what was that phrase the quality newspaper used in relation to the Minister? yes, the Minister's "superior knowledge"— with his superior knowledge would explain the reason to those of us who apparently do not possess the same degree of knowledge and did not see. The Minister has not been able to tell us. He has offered no justification for it, and in the absence of a justification, we can only think the worst and ask that the provision be deleted.

Mr. Flynn

Members are making something out of what is not the case. All I ask Members to understand is that the general provision is not new. Section 21 (2) of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955 provides that: "Regulations under this section may relate to local authorities generally, to any class of local authorities or to a particular local authority, and different regulations may be made in relation to different local authorities."

Mr. Gilmore

That is the City and County Management (Amendment) Act?

Mr. Flynn

It is a similar provision, a general provision, and it is put in there. One would imagine it was going to be used for some strange political purpose.

Mr. Howlin

It might well be.

Mr. Flynn

That was why I agreed to take Deputy Howlin's amendment; it can only be used and these regulations can only be made for the purposes of this legislation, so you cannot suggest it is going to be used in a way other than this legislation seeks to address. The Deputy wants just one example but then I could be asked to give another one and there could be 20 or 30. The accounts for certain local authorities are done differently from others and the accounts for Dublin Corporation are done in a certain way, different and separately from the way they are done in other counties. Maybe the Minister, for the wider public interest, would require that they stay that way, or they might all go in the same direction and be formalised in the same way as Dublin Corporation's accounts are. That has been even recommended by other Deputies on another occasion. One might wish to have all local authority accounts devised and promoted and published in a certain way, or one might wish that they should be different. That is only one simple example, but to be able to do that you have to have the provision to enable you to do it. You might wish to direct it in that way. It is continuing a practice that is there in the 1955 Act.

Mr. Howlin

I am trying to read through the provisions of the 1955 Act. Are we talking about the Local Government Act, 1955, No. 9 of that year?

Mr. Flynn

Is the Deputy seeking the number of the Act?

Mr. Howlin

I am looking at the Local Government Act, 1955 and its provisions. It includes a whole range of provisions and they are quite specific. The Bill is fairly broad in scope. It does not focus on planning exclusively or on any one aspect we can argue about. It is very sweeping legislation inasmuch as it touches on virtually every aspect of local administration. In this section the Minister wants to clutch to himself a series of powers to make regulations, as he sees fit, that apply, as he sees fit, to local authorities differently, case by case as he sees fit, that can apply within a local boundary case by case so that what might apply on one side of a street might not apply on the other. Repeatedly an amazing array of powers is being clutched by the Minister in relation to this. The only vestige of a reason he has given for all this is that it is a provision that is in other enactments. We need some time and we have asked for it and when the Minister throws out a Bill on the floor of the House we have not the time to go through its specific provisions.

On the generality of the issues we are talking about, will the Minister not accept that the power he seeks to clutch to himself is much too all-encompassing and he has given no reason whatsoever for the powers he has? We on this side of the House are not happy that he would not be minded to abuse these powers or use them in a way we would not agree with. He could give no guarantees that a successor of his would not abuse these powers. They are far too broad, sweeping and all-encompassing to be put into an enactment like this. I ask the Minister to think again on this issue.

Mr. Flynn

I am not accepting that. We have gone through it in some detail and pursued it as far as one could expect. Deputy Gilmore wants a specific example. I have given him an example that I know will not satisfy him. The provision is not new. It allows the Minister only to make regulations with the purpose of this Bill in mind. If the Deputy wants another example I can give it to him but I want to resist starting to go down that road.

It may be necessary to have different types of annual reports attached to different sized authorities, as between a very large one and a very small one. These areas come up on an ongoing basis. The Minister should have this residual power to be able to deal with these matters. I propose the matter be disposed of now.

Mr. Gilmore

On the example the Minister gave in regard to dealing with the accounting procedures in the local authorities——

Mr. Flynn

May be.

Mr. Gilmore

——he has contradicted himself in offering that example. The Bill makes no provision at all for financial provisions. That is one of our criticisms of the Bill. The Minister is saying he can make regulations only for matters which are comprehended by the Bill. If the Bill does not comprehend financial provisions how does he propose to make regulations dealing with the accounting procedures and so on in various local authorities unless, as I suspect, the Minister intends to make regulations which go beyond——

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is quite wrong there.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not wrong.

Mr. Flynn

He is. The Minister will have to make regulations to deal with the three new county council areas in the Dublin area.

Mr. Gilmore

That obtains in whatever part it is.

Mr. Flynn

He will have to do that.

Mr. Gilmore

That is already provided for.

Mr. Flynn

He may very well have to make regulations in so far as accounting practices are concerned and they may be different from others. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Gilmore

You do not need section 3 for that because that is already dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Flynn

I will give any example the Deputy wishes.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, subsection (3), lines 8 and 9, to delete paragraph (c).

The requirement of this amendment is to delete section 3 (3) (c) which is that regulations or an order under this Bill may: "provide for the giving of directions by the Minister (including directions amending or revoking any such directions)". It is the same case, the same arguments and I am weary of them. It is another layer of powers given to the Minister to give directions as he sees fit, with no limit and to revoke directions as he sees fit. It is totally wrong. Again I ask the Minister at least to consider at this stage giving some semblance of democratic accountability and control before this Bill goes completely off the rails. If section 3 goes through as envisaged by the Minister there is no question of calling this a local administration reform Bill. It is simply a centralisation of power in the hands of the Minister of the day. That is the long and short of it.

Mr. Flynn

The matter was dealt with before lunch and I have nothing further to add. I can understand Deputy Howlin pursuing the matter because it is being consistent with his line to date.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, lines 10 to 19, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

"(4) A draft of any regulation or order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order or regulation, as the case may be, shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

I regard this amendment as absolutely fundamental and I wish to push it. This amendment seeks the deletion of subsection (4) which requires annulling regulations and its replacement with the requirement to have a positive order of the Dáil to all regulations subsequent to this section.

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

The Committee divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 70.

Tá

Níl

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

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Mr. Flynn

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, subsection (4) lines 12, after "section 1 (10)" to insert "or 12".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 8, subsection (4) line 13, after "county borough" to insert the following:

"or an order under subsections (2), (3) or (4) of section 34, or an order under section 43 (5)".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, lines 20 and 21, to delete subsection (5).

This amendment is consequential on my amendment No. 13 and reflects my optimism that amendment No. 13 would have been carried. As it is linked to that amendment I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 18 in the name of Deputy Howlin. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are alternatives. It is proposed, therefore, for discussion purposes that we take Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 8, lines 22 to 28, to delete subsection (6).

The Minister has an alternative amendment to this amendment. Again the reasoning behind this amendment is linked to the optimistic approach to my amendment No. 13. As that amendment has fallen and the amendment the Minister is proposing is an improvement, I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Flynn

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 8, subsection (6), line 22, after "section" to insert "12 or".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 8, subsection (6), line 23, after "county borough", to insert the following:

"or an order under subsections (2), (3) or (4) of section 34, or an order under section 43 (5)".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 8, subsection (6), line 24, after "under" to insert "section 24 or 40 or".

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 73.

Tá

Níl

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 22 in the name of Deputy Howlin. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are related and it is proposed, therefore, for the purposes of debate to take amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 8, lines 29 to 34, to delete subsection (7).

This amendment seeks to delete subsection (7) which states that the Minister may, by order, amend or revoke any order under this Bill and by direction amend or revoke a direction under this Bill, including a direction under this subsection. Again, the arguments I have made during the day and the same logic apply in this case.

I would like to tease out amendment No. 23 which seeks to delete subsection (8). That subsection reads:

A person affected by a direction under this Act shall comply there with and every act done pursuant to such a direction shall be deemed to be done under the authority of this Act and shall have effect accordingly.

To whom is the Minister referring in this subsection? It should have occurred to those of us who have served on local authorities that the one person who may well be affected by this provision is the county manager. It seems that the Minister wants enshrined in legislation the power to direct the county manager in any county to act in the way he desires.

The role of the county manager in the affairs of local government is a very important one. It was suggested this morning by a Deputy on this side of the House in a wide ranging contribution in which he touched upon many sections that it would be dangerous if the county manager was beholden to the Minister for his job. That was in relation to possible renewal of his seven year contract, but this presents an even more direct challenge. There could be a conflict of interest between the desire of a local authority to do something and that of the Minister to prevent something being done.

I thought the whole function of the Bill was to give local authorities and local communities the power to control their own affairs and destinies. However, if the Minister is given the authority to direct a county manager to comply with his instructions then a county manager, or any official, will be placed in an invidious position and there certainly would be a conflict of interest. The first loyalty of the county manager should surely be to the local authority he manages but this would appear to be in conflict with the requirement in this subsection that he comply with the directions of the Minister.

This underscores the points we made ad nauseam that the pretence of devolving power is merely that, a sham. The Minister is seeking to maintain to himself the power to control affairs at local level right down to streets and houses and now personnel. It is necessary that these amendments be accepted if we are to have any semblance of local democracy once the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Taylor

I wish in the first instance to refer to subsection (8) which is the subject of amendment No. 23. That subsection if one analyses it, is a very strange animal and an extremely dangerous provision. The position ought to be that when an Act of the Oireachtas gives a Minister the authority to do a particular thing the Minister should be obliged to stay within the extent of the power devolved to him. It is bad enough that he is taking to himself an indecent and excessive power in the Bill but, leaving that aspect aside for the moment, what he is at in subsection (8) is both invidious and dangerous.

He is giving himself the power to exceed the authority given to him by the Bill. He is taking on the power in effect to overrule the Bill. Why do I say this? The subsection states, "and every act done pursuant to such a direction shall be deemed to be done under the authority of this Act". It would not matter for one moment if he gives a direction which exceeds his power, because the subsection states that any act done shall be deemed to be done under the authority of the Act; therein lies the danger. Any lawyer will say that when one sees the words, "deemed to be done" one should set off the alarm bells immediately because when you say that something is deemed to be something else, it means that it is not that at all, it is something quite different, otherwise you would not have to deem one thing to be another.

If the Minister exceeds the power and authority he is taking onto himself in the Bill could he explain why this House should have to agree that the direction he would issue should be deemed to be done within the powers of this Bill when it is not? Why on earth should the Minister seek that power? Would it not be sufficient for his purpose to say that a person affected by a direction under this Bill shall comply with it and that it shall have effect accordingly? If the Minister has done something ultra vires and this brings in the whole doctrine of ultra vires acting beyond his powers, he should not have done it and he has no business doing it, and if he exceeds his powers, it should be challengeable in the courts. Why should the Minister take carte blanche and put in a provision deeming something as lawful if he has exceeded his authority under this Bill? That is what this provision means; if it does mean that it means nothing, and if it means nothing it should not be in the Bill.

I will deal briefly with the previous subsection. I am sure the substance of it has been debated long and hard earlier but nonetheless I will comment on it. It is far too wide a power for the Minister to seek to take onto himself that broad spectrum of being able to make certain orders and regulations under the Bill subject to control by the House. We have debated many times this issue of positive resolution and the negative resolution. I have been in this House many times, when the Fianna Fáil Party were on the other side of the House and argued long and bitterly about how undemocratic it was and how outrageous it was, but when they are in Government it is a different story. Then they follow the parliamentary draftsmen when it suits them. They have less reason to support it now than they had when they were in Opposition because when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition they had the opportunity, if they were mindful to do so, to put down annulling resolutions because they were allocated Private Members' time every week. The Fine Gael Party have some opportunity of doing that too but the Labour Party, The Workers' Party, to say nothing of any independent Member, would have no opportunity of putting down an annulling resolution because the time span between allocations of time in Private Members' Time is so wide — perhaps once every term. It looks fine on the face of it to some outsider who would not understand the workings of the Dáil or the opportunity for a Member or a party to get something down on the Order Paper but the reality is otherwise. For all practical purposes, as far as the smaller parties are concerned, as a safeguard it means absolutely nothing; frankly we would prefer if the provision was not in the Bill at all because at least on the surface there would not appear to be a colour of fairness and democracy about matters. This gives the Bill a colour which it does not warrant in reality.

The Minister is taking away the democratic rights of elected Members to call into question orders that he makes from the Custom House, laws that he makes in the Custom House, which are not subject to review in this House. In subsection (8) he is taking upon himself the very grandiose power of overruling an Act of the Oireachtas and setting at naught the elimination of those very wide powers being devolved to him under this Bill. Not content with the exercise of those powers he is saying that even if he exceeds these powers it will be deemed to be all right. This is extremely dangerous and people should know what the Minister is about. It is a dangerous precedent and should not have been included. The House should not accept it.

Mr. Gilmore

I remember being at a residents' meeting some time ago and I am sure many Members will have shared this experience. An issue arose and the council members explained to the residents that we did not really have any decision in the matter because the decision was made by the county manager. One resident got up and said very forcibly that he elected us and not the county manager or the town clerk. The public find it very difficult to understand the division of functions between the reserved functions of elected members and the executive functions of management. Very often the public are frustrated that the people they have elected, and those whom they will elect on 27 June, cannot make the decision on a whole range of matters because these decisions are effectively made by the manager. I make that point because I fear subsection (8) will compound that problem because not only do we have the reserved functions of the council, the executive functions of the manager, we will now have an additional set of functions, the "do as you are told functions" which are being conferred under this section and where the Minister can direct the county manager to do something and the county manager will have to do it and will have the full authority of the Bill.

I would like to give some examples where I believe this will cause problems. A couple of years ago a well publicised situation arose in the Dublin County Council area following a Supreme Court decision which awarded £2 million planning compensation to a developer called Brennan and McGowan for Grange Developments. The county council were outraged that the ratepayers of County Dublin and taxpayers generally would have to pay out £2 million of public funds for a developer who had left many housing estates unfinished all over County Dublin and had one of the worst records anywhere in the country for unfinished housing estates, yet their claim for £2 million would have to be paid. The county council took a decision at a council meeting to instruct the manager not to pay it. It appeared for a day or so that the manager was going to comply with that decision, but then he was summoned by the Minister to the Custom House and was told to pay it. Many of us were very critical of the manager at that time for having complied with the Minister's wishes. If this Bill had been in place, the Minister would have issued a directive and the manager would have had to comply with it.

The question this subsection raises is who will be directing the manager. We have the problem already that managers tend to act very much independently of the elected members in many cases. Elected members may want to give a direction, the Minister may give a conflicting direction. How does this square with section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955?

Leaving aside the planning decisions let us use the example of a local authority passing a resolution under section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act giving a direction to a county manager to, for example, provide a travellers' halting site in a particular location. If the Minister issues a direction under this section which conflicts with the direction of the council and directs the manager to put the halting site somewhere else, which direction will the manager have to comply with? Will he have to comply with the direction he has been given by the elected members of his council or the direction given by the Minister? There is a conflict here which is not reconciled anywhere in the Bill. As I understand the section, no matter what the council may decide or what the wishes of a manager may be, the Minister can give a direction to the manager.

In a recent case involving Dublin County Council there was a conflict between the elected members of the council and the manager over a temporary travellers' halting site in Mulhuddart where the manager wanted to proceed in one direction and the council wanted to proceed in a different direction. Will the Minister be able to give a direction to a manager in those circumstances? Conflict also arose recently in Cork over the jailing of householders for the non-payment of water charges. The manager decided to look for committal orders against a number of householders who had not paid water charges and the council, as I understand it, pursuant to section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act passed a motion directing the manager not to pursue that line of action. The manager ignored that motion. I understand there is considerable question as to whether the manager was correct in ignoring the direction of the council in that case.

Under this section the Minister can give a direction to managers. What will happen if the Minister gives a direction to a manager which is in direct conflict with the direction he has received from the elected council? The Minister should explain this point which I regard as a recipe for chaos. A county manager will not know from whom he has to take direction, the elected council or the Minister. As has been said earlier, because the Minister will now have the power to decide how long a manager can stay in office and whether or not his tenure of office should be renewed, it would be understandable if a county manager decided that the safest thing to do was what the Minister told him. The proposal in this section is a reversal of local democracy. Not only will we have the existing problem of conflict between elected councils and appointed managers but we will have the additional problem of managers who, because of this legislation, will say, "We have to do what we are told by the Minister because it says so in section 3 (8) of the Local Government Act, 1991."

Mr. Flynn

As Deputy Howlin rightly said, we have been over this ground before. However Deputy Taylor has added some fresh points to which I should like to respond. Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 involve the deletion of section 3 (7), (8) and (9). These amendments are consequent on Deputy Howlin's amendment No. 13, which was defeated, in which he sought that all regulations and orders should be approved in draft. Deputy Taylor was concerned that the provisions might be dangerous. I should like to point out to him that similar provisions appear in a number of Acts relating to local government. I shall give some examples. Section 64 of the Abattoirs Act, 1988 and——

Mr. Taylor

They have to get their minds off meat.

Mr. Flynn

——section 15 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1978, use the same terminology, "shall be deemed to be done under the authority of the Act and shall have effect accordingly". There is also a reference to this provision in section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1941, and section 20 of the 1939 agricultural grants Act. I cannot remember any of those provisions causing undue stress in their application. They are very rarely used, if at all. These provisions are simply a necessary safeguard given to the Minister who has responsibility for the overall supervision of the local government system. They have never caused any difficulty in the past and I cannot imagine that they will cause any difficulty in the future. Section 11 of the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974, provides that all and any directions of the Minister relating to national roads must be complied with.

A question was raised in regard to the person who would be involved. This is defined in the 1937 Interpretation Act and covers a corporate body of any kind as well as an individual.

Mr. Howlin

What individual has the Minister in mind?

Mr. Flynn

It could be an individual or a corporate body, the local authority or the county manager. In practice, directions are given to the local authority and they have to be complied with by the manager or the council, as appropriate. There are very few examples of the issue of this kind of directive. I understand that they usually apply to a county secretary in relation to, say, technical amendments which would have to be put in place for a polling scheme following a boundary extension. If a boundary extension was granted for an urban district council certain readjustments may have to be made in so far as the polling scheme is concerned to the administrative area. On occasion, directions have to be given to the county secretary in that regard. This is where the individual would be involved. In normal circumstances it would be the corporate body as distinct from the individual who would be involved. However, the "person" covers both.

I know it will be of little comfort to Deputy Taylor to say that one can have a different attitude depending on the side of the House one is on but apart from that this provision has stood the test of time. No examples come to mind of where this provision was abused or misued in any way. It is a useful safeguard and one would have to accept that it should be included in this type of legislation.

Mr. Howlin

May I ask the Minister a specific and simple question by way of clarification? Will section 3 (8) give the Minister the power to direct a county manager or county secretary to take a direction in relation to any matter and disregard the views of the local council? Will it confer that power on the Minister, yes or no?

Mr. Flynn

No.

Mr. J. Mitchell

With regard to the question raised by Deputy Gilmore, if a valid section 4 direction under the 1955 Act is given to a manager by the elected council can a direction given by the Minister under this subsection overrule that section 4 direction?

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy would have to give a specific example of the kind of direction about which he is talking. The area of activity the Deputy has in mind obviously would have a bearing on the issue.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Clearly the answer is "maybe". That is what the Minister is implying. The 1955 Act gives to local councillors the very important reserved power of directing the city or county manager to do anything that is legal. It is one of the few powers they have. There is a provision here under subsection (8) whereby a Minister can give a direction which is at variance or in conflict with a valid direction of the elected council under the 1955 City and County Managers Act. Which of the directions will be the superior direction? Will it be the ministerial direction under this Bill or will it be the council direction under the 1955 Act?

Mr. Flynn

We are dealing only with the purpose of this Bill. The Deputy is asking a general question which is outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Howlin

We are asking about subsection (8).

Mr. Taylor

It is a very fair question.

Mr. Flynn

I am saying that if a section 4 motion validly tabled in a specific way requests the manager to do something that is lawful, as long as the requirements of the Estimates and everything else are complied with to enable it to happen, then that is a legal instrument and has the force of law.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Let the Minister face the question now, and not wriggle. Here is great potential for conflict. Under section 4 of the City and County Managers Act the council can direct the manager to build a road according to a certain line. I am using a case in point where I myself moved a section 4 motion to change the line of a road because, in my view, the original line would have unnecessarily inconvenienced many people. Let us say the council decide to change the line of a road to go behind a housing estate rather than in front of it. Can a ministerial direction under this subsection insist on the manager keeping to the original line?

Mr. Flynn

The answer is no.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It cannot.

Mr. Howlin

Where is that in the Bill?

Mr. Flynn

It has nothing at all to do with the purpose of this Bill. That is the point.

Mr. Gilmore

Let us suppose that members of Dún Laoghaire Borough Council decide, by section 4 motion, to direct the manager to provide a footpath along a particular stretch of road and the cost of providing the footpath is £10,000. Let us suppose that the Minister, under section 24 or whatever of this Bill, is at a point where he is saying to Dún Laoghaire Borough Council that they must now transfer their functions to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown committee; or let us suppose he issues a direction to Dún Laoghaire council that they may not carry out any further works, say, on roads, that that function is to be transferred to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown committee: then which will be the valid direction? That is a situation which would arise under this legislation.

Mr. Flynn

It will continue to be pursued in the usual way. It will continue as in the initial situation.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not clear on that.

Mr. Flynn

The answer is no. The Deputy is asking if I could supersede that, and the answer is no.

Mr. Taylor

It is no good saying no. Why not?

Mr. Flynn

Because it would be a valid project that was being undertaken by the council, funded and all that goes with it. It does not arise.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Here is the value of Committee Stage teasing out. Unfortunately we are only on section 3. It is a great pity that over 40 sections of this Bill will not get any consideration at all, and there may be equally glaring conflicts as in this section. This is precisely what Committee Stage is for. It is very tiresome but very necessary. It is very clear to me from the Minister's demeanour and from the blank look of incomprehension on his face that he himself is not sure, to say the least.

Mr. Flynn

To every question the Deputy has asked I have said yes or no.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Yes, but in the most hesitant tone and with that vague questioning look on his face which does not get on to the record.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is posing questions without giving detail. They are hypothetical questions.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Yes, but this is hypothetical legislation.

Mr. Flynn

There is nothing new in this section. This provision goes back 50 or 60 years. The Deputy is posing hypothetical questions that could have applied anytime in the past 50 or 60 years.

Mr. J. Mitchell

There is nothing actually new except that section 3 of this Bill enables the Minister to bring in an enormous number of regulations or orders under subsequent sections of the Bill, and those powers provided in the subsequent sections are very extensive indeed. The Minister calls them residual powers, but they are very extensive residual powers. I did not put down any amendments to subsections (7), (8) and (9) because I accepted that they were routine expressions. What are not routine however, are the powers expressed in the Bill. Elsewhere in the Bill the Minister can give directions of all sorts. Deputy Taylor has quoted a case where the Minister can actually deem existing law to be overruled. I quoted the last subsection of section 40 which is another instance where the Minister can make an order or regulation overruling even an existing statute. Now, under subsection (8), is the Minister saying categorically that he cannot give a direction which overrides a valid section 4 direction of the elected council?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McCormack.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Let the Minister answer. Has the Minister got an answer?

Mr. Flynn

Yes I have an answer. Has Deputy McCormack got something to add?

Mr. J. Mitchell

Talk about hesitancy.

Mr. Flynn

There is no hesitancy in it. The Deputy wishes to pursue hypothetical cases that might or might not happen and that could have been contemplated for the last 60 years. I am just saying that section 4 is a legal instrument which when validly used and when the resources are there to comply with it, obviously has the force of law. That is the first thing. The Minister may give a direction to a corporate body — and that corporate body can be a local authority or the county manager — to do a certain thing, and it is a matter then for the authority to comply with that.

Mr. J. Mitchell

How can they comply if it is something that is in contradiction to another valid direction?

Mr. Flynn

The point is the Minister can give a valid direction under this section. It has not happened too often except in the cases I mentioned. It has not happened except in regard to polling schemes and so on. That is the provision which is there and which has been there in all this other legislation I referred to. The Deputy is raising matters as if they were everyday occurrences, as if legislation was about to go in a different direction from that of existing legislation.

Mr. J. Mitchell

They do not have to be every day occurrences to give cause for concern.

Mr. Flynn

If the cause for concern is so great I would love the Deputy to give me an example of concerns that were caused by the implementation of these directions which go back to 1939. We can talk about hypothetical cases as long as the Deputy likes.

Mr. Howlin

We are supposed to be reforming.

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Taylor himself knows that if any person, in the widest interpretation of the word, is given a direction and considers it is not in order, there is a remedy available for that. If the Minister gives a direction on any particular item, whether it is a polling scheme or anything else, if the corporate body or the individual to whom it might be directed thinks it is not in order, then he has recourse to——

Mr. J. Mitchell

Let me put it a different way, a Cheann Comhairle, one that the Minister might be familiar with.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Mitchell, I have called Deputy McCormack. He gave way to the Minister earlier.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Please allow me to make this point. Supposing the Castlebar Urban District Council ordered the manager, under section 4, to build a ring road around Castlebar, would it be valid under this subsection for the Minister to direct him not to do so?

Mr. Flynn

Of course not.

Mr. McCormack

I wish to refer to section 3.

Mr. Flynn

Let us be clear about the matter. Subsequent to such a decision being taken the Minister might not provide the funds to build the road, that would be an entirely different matter. As for making a decision because of a wish to do something, a local authority can do so if they so wish. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that it will happen. Does that settle the matter, Deputy Mitchell?

Mr. McCormack

I wish to deal with something that would not cause the Minister to have to give money. I wish to talk about that part of section 3 dealing with the famous section 4 motions. Will section 3 (8) give the Minister authority to overrule a council decision on the matter of a section 4 motion?

In the Minister's Second Stage speech he said that the idea was to make the granting of section 4 motion's more difficult but that they could not be eliminated because of the necessity for elected members to have that right. I agree with the Minister's views on that issue. The issue was raised first by Deputy Mitchell from the point of not giving full authority to the Executive. If this new section becomes part of the Bill will the Minister have authority to overrule in a case in which the Executive does not implement the section 4 wishes of a council?

I have dealt with several practical cases in my experience as a member of a local authority, Galway County Council, within the past year or two in which the county manager did not implement section 4 motions as passed by the council. However, in the Minister's own county of Mayo, the county manager does implement the section 4 applications as passed by the council. According to the new Bill, will the Minister have authority to overrule when a manager does not accept the wishes of the members as regards section 4 applications, or does section 3 (8) give the Minister authority to uphold the decision of elected councillors in the passing of legitimate section 4 applications?

Mr. Flynn

The issue has nothing at all to do with what the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. McCormack

It has nothing to do with it?

Mr. Flynn

No, that is purely a matter between the members and the manager. We are talking about something that is hypothetical.

Mr. McCormack

No, it is not.

Mr. Flynn

Except to say that the planning process does not finish as between the members and the county manager.

Mr. McCormack

The matter is not hypothetical. I am talking about the reality of part of my own electoral area being in the Minister's constitutency; part of my county council electoral area is now in the West Mayo constituency.

Mr. Flynn

I do not represent it.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister will please God, represent it after the next election — along with Enda Kenny, Myles Staunton, and a few more.

A Deputy

He is praying for the Minister now.

Mr. Flynn

If the Deputy is doing that with his clients up there, too, he is a good friend of mine.

Mr. McCormack

I draw the Minister's attention to the reality that he will be a public representative and that to all intents and purposes he is a public representative for my county council electoral area in Headford and Caherlistrane. If there is one law for County Galway, will that law be changed when County Galway becomes part of County Mayo?

Mr. Flynn

No.

Mr. McCormack

Let us forget about County Galway becoming part of County Mayo. If this section is passed, will the Minister have any jurisdiction over a county manager who does not implement the democratic wishes of councillors?

Mr. Flynn

I am sorry, but I do not wish to pursue that matter. I know of some of the cases the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. McCormack

I am not talking about any specific case.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is talking about specific cases, in fact. A few celebrated cases have been brought to the Deputy's attention——

Mr. McCormack

No, I am not.

Mr. Flynn

——in so far as the implementation of section 4 motions is concerned. I am taking the general view. While I do not know the details of the way in which Galway County Council conduct their business in relation to section 4 motions, I do know that section 4 motions are put through that council for certain matters but on occasions it has been intimated to me that the county manager did not implement them. However, I always understood — and Deputies may correct me if I am wrong — that the manager had indicated that he had received legal advice that he should not do so. If a manager receives legal advice that he or she should not pursue a certain matter in a certain way in relation to section 4 motions there is an opportunity for the aggrieved person to pursue the matter in another form. I am not about to go into that issue now, I do not think that the committee should go into it. I certainly hope that no Member is suggesting that the Minister should be involved in the issuing of directions about planning matters.

Mr. Howlin

Quite the reverse, I think. That is the issue that Opposition Members have been trying to address. I wish to re-focus on the nub of the issue, that is, the Minister's power under this subsection to circumvent the decision of elected members. It is clear that the Minister has very strong and broad general powers to make directions and to give instructions under section 3 (8). Under that subsection a body, person, or corporate entity is obliged to obey that direction. As my colleague, Deputy Taylor has indicated, even when the direction supersedes legal authority it may be deemed to be lawful.

Several hypothetical questions have been put about the issue of conflicting orders, we have not received a satisfactory answer. I pose yet another question. Suppose the Minister initiated a procedure and under this provision gave direction to every local authority to construct a halting site. If a local authority decided that in their area a halting site would not be suitable because there was already one in an adjoining area and so gave direction to the manager not to build a halting site. In such a conflict which order would be the superior? Would the superior order be that of the elected members to the manager or would it be the instruction of the Minister under section 3 (8)?

Mr. Flynn

The Minister cannot give such a direction in that manner under this Bill.

Mr. Howlin

Under this section? Can I tease out the answer finally? Twice the Minister has said that that is not possible, but it is not clear what is possible. Would the Minister please explain what particular regulations and powers would devolve on the Minister under the section?

Mr. Flynn

The answer can be stated in one simple sentence. It is not a purpose of this Bill, and the Minister cannot therefore issue a direction.

Mr. Howlin

No change.

Mr. Flynn

That is changing the tune.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to pursue with the Minister an example that would clearly arise under the terms of the Bill. Dublin County Council propose to build a sewer at Carrickmines Valley.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy wants it built, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Gilmore

The sewer will connect the Carrickmines Valley sewerage system to the Shanganagh sewage treatment works. It will go through the functional area of Dún Laoghaire Corporation. The point at which it will go through the functional area of Dún Laoghaire Corporation is the Loughlinstown Ecology Park. Obviously, that will create a stink. The Minister could give a direction under the Bill as part of the reorganisation of Dublin that responsibility for the laying of the sewer pipes be transferred from Dún Laoghaire Corporation to Dublin County Council and to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area committee. He can give such a direction under this Bill. Sewers will be a matter for Dublin County Council. Suppose Dún Laoghaire Borough Council then, who are still in existence, instruct their manager, by a section 4 motion, to reroute the line of the sewer pipe or refuse to allow it to come through the Loughlinstown Ecology park, and to resolve this issue the Minister then says — because he can do it for any part of a functional area and so on: "As sewers are a matter now for the area committee I am giving a direction that the sewer goes through the ecology park", which is going to win, the section 4 decision of the borough council, which is a perfectly valid decision, or the Minister's decision?

Mr. Flynn

That is a supposed issue.

Mr. Gilmore

These can be very real issues.

Mr. Flynn

I am surprised at Deputy Gilmore. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the laying of sewer pipes.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister has powers.

Mr. Flynn

I can only issue a direction for the purposes of this Bill. It seems to me quite simple. It is only in matters related specifically to this Bill. That is stated and we agreed that in the amendment with Deputy Howlin. I cannot give such a direction.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister can give a direction saying——

Mr. Flynn

I can only give a direction if it combines with the purposes of this Bill. Laying a sewer pipe has nothing to do with this Bill.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Taylor

It is one of the purposes of this Bill in section 5, for example, for the local authority to carry out a survey with respect to the local community. Let us say that by a section 4 resolution Mayo County Council direct the manager to carry out a survey as to the feasability of having a travellers' halting site at a location in or near Castlebar.

Mr. McCormack

Or Headford.

Mr. Taylor

Or Headford, and if the manager does not like the idea and wants to squash it from the word "go", he then issues a directive. That comes directly within the ambit of this Bill. It is specifically given in section 5. As the manager says, if a section 4 motion is valid it is lawful and binding as a statutory power. The Minister's directive under subsection (8) would purport to be the same. It comes within the ambit of the Bill specifically in section 5 (2) (c), and then the Minister would be left with the rather embarrassing situation of having two perfectly valid contradictory obligations in law.

Mr. Gilmore

To lay two sewer pipes.

Mr. Flynn

The Minister cannot give a direction to the manager about something which is a reserved function——

Mr. Gilmore

Yes, he can.

Mr. Flynn

——which is the hypothetical matter, I might add, that Deputy Taylor is referring to in section 5. Directions in so far as they comply with this Bill can only be given where there is a specific provision for this in the relevant section of this Bill or for the purposes of the Bill. All the hypothetical cases that have been trotted out have nothing to do with this Bill. The Deputies are talking about other Acts from which they might like to have such a power removed from the Minister, but they have nothing to do with this Bill. I can issue directions only in so far as they comply with a specific provision of this Bill. The Deputies have been pursuing this matter ad nauseam and they know it——

Mr. Howlin

Without breaking——

Mr. Flynn

Yes, because the Deputy and I both agreed earlier on the question about the purposes of this Bill. If he agrees with me that the purposes of this Bill are to be served only by the extent of the Minister's powers in this Bill, then I cannot give directions to things that are not controlled or covered by the Bill. That should be simple enough for anybody to understand. The case rests. There is no point in pursuing it further. We are not back to section 4s, are we?

Mr. McCormack

No. Before we decide whether to vote on this section we want to know if the Minister can overrule what the county council have decided to do. We have not got a clear yes or no to that and when we get a clear yes or no we will know exactly what to do.

Mr. Flynn

Deputies have given some examples and I have said no. If they want to continue another list of examples I will say yes or no as the case might be.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Is there any doubt?

Mr. Flynn

There is no doubt in the Deputy's mind.

Mr. J. Mitchell

In my view it is very clear from the Minister's demeanour that there is doubt as to which would be superior, a direction from the Minister on this section or a direction under section 4 of the 1955 Act by the council. For the avoidance of doubt the Minister might like to consider having the matter clarified on Report Stage.

Mr. Flynn

The matter is perfectly clear and the Deputy knows it. The Minister's directions are confined to the provisions of this Bill and no others. There is no point in pursuing a whole range of suggestions that have effect in other legislation. I have quoted examples from a whole range of Local Government Acts from 1939 until now and there have been no cases to answer in this regard, so why are Deputies pursuing something that does not apply?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Howlin and I agreed this matter three hours ago, so he should be the last one to pursue it now.

Mr. McCormack

We have a unique Minister now. That is why we are pursuing it. He represents some of the people in my council area and my constituency.

Mr. Flynn

I represent some of the people the Deputy represents.

Mr. McCormack

He represents people in my council area down in Headford, and I represent them on Galway County Council. I would not like anything that would create a barrier between us.

Mr. Allen

Is it time for the motion? Where are the Government?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A special situation obtains. It would not be in order now to have a vote because we are into the time that has been allocated to other business.

Top