Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 6

Local Government Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 6, after "GOVERNMENT" to insert "AND TO ENABLE THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO EFFECT CERTAIN REFORMS".

What I seek to do in this amendment is to change the title of this Bill from "An Act to amend and extend the law relating to local government" and to add "and to enable the Minister for the Environment to effect certain reforms". It is significant that many of us have spent a very long time preparing amendments at short notice. We have gone through 27 of the 300 amendments tabled by Opposition parties on a Bill which, as I said earlier, will determine the structures for local government for years to come.

Many of us on this side of the House feel frustrated because clearly the Minister is not of a mind to accept amendments, no matter how well argued or logical they may be. He is determined to bulldoze through this House in the shortest possible time very comprehensive legislation that does not bring about local government reform or a devolution of powers to local authorities but brings to himself a whole range of new authorities and powers.

We have only begun to scratch the surface of this Bill in recent days and it has underscored very clearly that the fears we expressed from the very beginning, that the Bill was far from reforming legislation, are all true. I deeply regret that the Minister and the Government have refused to allow adequate time to Deputies on this side of the House and to his own backbenchers — if any of them have an interest in local government, but it does not seem they have from their attendance over the past few days — to bring some measure of reform into this Bill and to make it workable. I deeply regret also that Members on this side are clearly not going to make any changes because the Minister has the numbers and has a fixed mind on the issue. The only thing we can hope to do is to alert the general public to what exactly is in the Bill.

Unfortunately the efforts made by this side of the House got scant coverage in the media. The endless hours we have put in in recent days to try to reveal the damage being done by this Bill and to underscore the hidden agenda of the Bill have gone largley unreported. I regret that very much. We would get some satisfaction at least from being able to say we have done a good job if the people were alerted to the dangers inherent in this Bill because this Minister and the Government refused us the opportunity to make meaningful changes.

Before we continue with this sham — and it is increasingly clear that that is what it is — let me say the Government are not interested in this Bill. They have put together a measure largley to satisfy a promise they made to introduce local government reform prior to the local elections. At the hustings they can say they kept their promise in the hope that the public will not be alerted to the reality that not only have they not kept their promise, but they betrayed the trust of the people in relation to the many aspects of the reforms and the real devolution of powers promised.

Let us begin this Report Stage debate by addressing that reality. Let us begin by putting in a new Title, a definitive Title. It is not an Act to extend the law relating to local government; it is an Act to enable the Minister for the Environment to effect changes. The Bill gives him the powers to do a range of things by order, by regulation. The devolution of powers that he lauded widely at press conferences and during his Second Stage speech are a pretence and are seen to be shallow and hollow when he puts a range of obstacles in the face of the real devolution of power. The Minister has no intention of allowing one whit of control to escape the Custom House. That is patently clear.

The issue of funding, which we discussed at length, is not addressed in this Bill. I do not want to take up time because we have a lot of work to do, but we should start off on the basis of reality. Since we cannot achieve anything by way of change, let us underscore to the best of our ability the effects of the Bill to the people outside. Now that other issues are not detracting from this debate today, I hope this fundamental legislation — and few Bills are of more fundamental importance because we are putting in place the layer of democratic accountability for local government — will be seen to be a sham. Let us put that down in black and white for the world to see.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Many of the provisions of this Bill are merely semantic and to call them reforms is a mistake. For that reason I consider the amendment tabled by Deputy Howlin as semantic, as are many of his 163 amendments which have clogged up the Order Paper and obscured very real issues, some of which have been addresed extremely well by Deputy Howlin.

I do not agree with his criticism of the media coverage because that has been quite extensive, and last Saturday The Irish Times covered detailed analysis of the Bill.

Mr. Howlin

We have been debating the Committee Stage for the past three days.

Mr. J. Mitchell

There has been a good exposé in the papers of the issues involved. My main criticism is of the way the Government have sought to bring in a Bill which has very far-reaching powers. When I pointed that out, as did Deputy Howlin and Deputy Gilmore, during the first 24 hours of the debate, the press briefings by the Minister and his colleagues, the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, and the Government press secretary were to the effect that we had misread the Bill. That line was bought by a number of commentators even though what had happened was that the Ministers had misread the Bill and the Opposition's reading of it was correct.

To call this Bill, as Deputy Howlin proposes, "An Act to amend and extend the law relating to Local Government and to enable the Minister for the Environment to effect certain reforms" would give the Minister some cover. The present Title, "An Act to amend and extend the law relating to Local Government," is more accurate as that is what the Minister is doing; he is extending the law relating to local government and extending his powers dramatically.

Some people may ask, what is in a name? It can be very symbolic and significant and the title chosen by the Minister outlines what he is doing; he is extending the law relating to local government, which is a mistake. The Minister should be trying to extract himself from local government and allow local government and local people discretion over local affairs. He should reinvigorate local government and restore to it some purpose and vigour. Those of us who have had any connection with this area know that the reality of local government for the past number of years has been one of enormous lethargy, aimlessness and ineffectiveness. This is because even simple decisions on which recreational grant should be met is decided by the Minister, whether it is in Ballydehob or Ballymaloe. The present Title is much more accurate than the one proposed in Deputy Howlin's amendment.

I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to restore to local government some of the discretion they used to have. He should delete those sections of the Bill which will enable the Minister to intrude into such minor matters as twinning between local authorities, the granting of civic honours and chairmen and councillors' allowances and expenses. If he were to delete those provisions he would show that he does not really want to control the minutiae of every aspect of local government. Even though those changes would be largely symbolic, they would somewhat redeem the Bill.

I know that many people do not think too much about local government. However, they do think about the quality of life as their everyday lives are affected by the quality of the environment. More than the other II EC countries, people in Ireland have lost control and influence over their local environment. They have no say in it. That is why we have extensive urban blight — particularly in Dublin within a mile of this House — which has gone on for years. This happened because local people lost their power and influence over these matters and cannot effect change or exert pressure to have them put right.

This is happening throughout the country. People have no say in the provision of public lighting, the removal of a derelict site or dangerous building or the provision and maintenance of parks. One had more control over these things when I was a councillor in the seventies. These issues are now almost beyond the power of county councils — the same line is trotted out by all managers — there are no funds. This line has been used as an excuse for every inefficiency, every lack of initiative and lack of energy in local authorities.

The reality is that the question of funding was missed. When Fine Gael stood their ground and did not agree to an all-party committee on local government reform because it left out the question of funding, we were not supported by the other parties. We were the only party who said at that time that such a committee would be meaningless unless it addressed the issue of local government funding. We have been derided for that decision and accused of holding up local government reform. However, the reality is that reform and changes mean nothing unless the question of funding is addressed.

Mr. Gilmore

This debate on the Local Government Bill is degenerating by the hour; it is becoming a pretence. Between now and 4.30 p.m. today we will pretend to debate 261 Report Stage amendments, most of which we will not reach. We spent two days engaged in a pretence of a Committee Stage debate, a debate which was supposed to take us line by line through the Bill and tease out the detail of what is proposed by the Minister. The reality is that we got as far as section 4 and 51 sections were not teased out at all by this House. This is not the fault of those who have been here over the past two to three days engaged in this debate. It is the fault of the Government who have reduced this debate to a farce and have brought about a situation where this House has been given no real role in discussing the form of local government which will exist for the next 25 years or so.

We need to contrast this with a number of points. First, we need to contrast it with the fact that local government has not been reorganised for over 100 years. The main local government legislation — some sections of which are proposed to be repealed by this Bill — go back to 1840. For the first time in the history of the State, we are addressing the question of new types of local government structures and repealing Victorian legislation which was introduced by a previous Administration in a previous century when, as the Minister put it, roads were the preserve of the horse and cart. However, the national Parliament has not been given any real opportunity to debate the issues before us.

We have to contrast this with the time it has taken to bring this Bill before the House. Local government reform has been under discussion in this State for the past 20 years or more — I think the first report was in 1971. At every postponement of local elections Governments spoke about reorganising local government. The question of local government reform was so important that the local elections had to be postponed 12 months ago. The people's democratic right to elect their councillors on a five year basis, which was provided for in the 1973 Local Government Act, had to be set aside as the question of reforming local government was so important.

The expert committee were given initially the period between May and September to address the very complex questions that are involved in local government reorganisation. The expert committee found they could not do it in that time — and these are people who have a lifetime of knowledge dealing with local government — and they had that time for addressing these issues extended and they eventually made a very good report by December. It took them eight months to produce their views on local government.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is prepared to allow a certain amount of latitude when dealing with this amendment in Deputy Howin's name concerning the Title of the Bill, but I would dissuade Members from embarking upon what seems to be very wide ranging speeches more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill which is long past.

Mr. Gilmore

I am addressing myself to the Title of the Bill. It is now down to a choice between whether we call it a Bill to extend local government or add the terms proposed by Deputy Howlin to enable the Minister for the Environment to effect certain reforms.

The Title does raise the way in which this legislation is being brought before us because while normally it would be correct that we would apply ourselves in a very blinkered way to the individual amendments as they are proposed, I am simply drawing attention to the fact that there is no way in the course of today's discussions that we can address the detail of this Bill through the 261 amendments we have before us. I am simply drawing attention to the contrast between the amount of time we are given as parliamentarians to address the Bill and the time it took the Bill to come before us.

I mentioned the length of time it took for the report to be produced, that the Government took a further two months to make up their mind about it and a further two months again to produce the Bill. Then it was given to us to deal with in a matter of a couple of days. I am simply drawing attention to it because this will be repeated during the course of the day. This is farcical; it is absurd; we are here pretending that we are addressing the detail of this Bill when we know very well we have no possibility of getting through the detail of the Bill in the course of the day.

Deputy Mitchell raised a couple of questions about his own party's approach to the question of local government reform. It should be put on record that the way this Bill is being put through the House has been to some extent contributed to by the approach of the Fine Gael Party. We all share a certain degree of scepticism when asked to participate in all party committees, but to refuse to participate in the Bill as Fine Gael did was quite negative. I think it arose from a time when Fine Gael were more interested in appearing to be macho than in addressing issues of policy, and that is very much to be regretted. I think also that the extent to which the Minister has been able to get off the hook on the appalling nature of this Bill which so undermines local government and transfers powers to himself has been contributed to in part by the degree of overstatement Deputy Mitchell engaged in immediately after the Bill was produced — and I am sorry Deputy Mitchell is not here to hear this.

We certainly criticised this Bill for undermining local government, for transferring powers to the Minister for the Environment. That is perfectly clear from the detail of the Bill and will become painfully clear as the years go on and local government attempts to operate under this Bill. The degree of over-statement about and the extent of the transfer of powers enabled the Minister to get off the hook to some extent and that is to be regretted.

I support Deputy Howlin's amendment because it more accurately describes what this Bill is about. I very much regret that we have engaged in a pretence of a debate over the past two to three days and that that pretence will continue today. This is no way to deal with establishing democratic structures in this State. People want to be involved in decision making as it affects their own lives at local level. They want to be involved in controlling the services that are supplied to them at local level. There is increasing frustration on the part of people at local level because they have no control over a whole range of services provided to them whether it is the police — and I appreciate the police are outside the remit of local government although that is not so in other countries — the repair of public lighting, the repair and maintenance of the roads, works carried out in their neighbourhood, planning issues water supply etc. There is growing frustration among the public that they do not have this control and that frustration is reflected within the political parties. It is a fact that many member of the Minister's party who have been councillors have simply given up in frustration. I know of Fianna Fáil councillors who are not standing for re-election because they believe there is no point in it, they have no real control or any real say.

Every political party in this State — and it is time the political parties acknowledged this — has experienced difficulty obtaining candidates for local elections this year because there is a perception among the public and among people who are active in politics that there is no point being elected to local authorities which have very limited powers, which are starved of finance, which are overridden by appointed officials rather than run by the elected councillors and which now, under this Bill, are to be overridden by ministerial dictat.

It is the ultimate undermining of local government that there is no great rush among the public or among members of political parties to participate in the process. That is a sign that local democracy is being gradually eroded and gradually undermined in this State and, unfortunately, far from remedying that, this Bill will compound it.

Mr. McCormack

First I would like to get Deputy Gilmore's remarks about Deputy Mitchell's reaction to the Bill out of the way. The only fault I found with Deputy Mitchell's reaction to the Bill was that it gave the Bill a credence it did not deserve. Deputy Mitchell was right to draw attention to the anomalies in the Bill from the beginning. He did a service in alerting the general public to the dangers of this Bill. If there was any fault with Deputy Mitchell's contribution it was that it might have made people think this Bill was about something when it has turned out to be about very little. I have no quibble with the Title of this Bill.

It does not matter what it is called. This legislation is about so little that its title is insignificant, unless, of course, it is given a name that would alert the people to what it is. It could be called "The Excuse For The Reform Of Local Government Bill", "The Lost Chance For The Reform Of Local Government Bill", or something equally sensational. Such a title would draw properly to the attention of the general public that the Bill is a lost opportunity.

There is nothing about real reform of local government in the Bill. I am a councillor of 16 years' standing — 17 years this year — and there is nothing in the Bill to help make my tasks as a councillor any more interesting or to help me do my job any better. As Deputy Gilmore said, it is no wonder that so many county councillors — in my own county there are at least eight, most from the Government party — are not willing to stand again. At least five members of Galway Corporation, more than one-third of its membership, are not willing to stand again for local government. The reason is that they are frustrated at being in local government, and the Bill has been the a last straw for them in that respect.

When the local elections were postponed a year ago, some hope was held that real reform of local government would take place. Instead of that, there has been this non-event of a Bill. What is in the Bill? Will the Bill do anything to provide one more local authority house? I ask the Minister what in the Bill will do anything about the roads in County Galway or any other county. Despite any assurances given by the Minister in the papers, on television, or anywhere else, my county engineer told me yesterday that because of a lack of money this year he will be able to carry out only one-tenth of the necessary maintenance on county roads in the electoral area I represent. I challenge the Minister to deny that reality anywhere. He can have all the meetings he likes with county managers and try to distract attention from the real issue of not providing money for local authorities. For the first few days I went through the Bill and searched in vain for a glimmer of hope of it providing services in the counties. I was a sadly disappointed to find nothing of that kind in the Bill. The title of the Bill really does not matter unless it is called the non-event of the term of the present Minister for the Environment.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

I take it that the House is dealing with amendment No. 1 and the long title of the Bill, although one would be forgiven for thinking that the House was back on Second Stage. That is an illustration of the way in which Opposition Members have dealt with the Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

We are going backwards already.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy has been leading the charge that way, but, then, he has been going backwards for sometime. The words proposed for addition to the long title are unnecessary. The legislation will be a Local Government Act, and there have been well over 20 Local Government Acts. The long title: "An Act to amend and extend the law relating to local government", describes perfectly well what the Bill does. I hope that Deputies do not intend to press this point, because it is not substantial. Yesterday Deputy Howlin himself admitted that the amendment was not substantial, but he seems to persist in pursuing the point for some strange reason. He raised a similar issue yesterday in relation to the short title. I must point out that contrary to what the amendments states, the Bill contains provisions that are not enabling ones but have effect directly from its enactment. The Deputy is therefore factually incorrect.

Mr. Howlin

That is not so.

Mr. Flynn

The matter was disposed of yesterday, and nothing is gained by endless discussion on a trivial point.

Mr. Howlin

A trivial Bill?

Mr. Flynn

There again the Deputy is not being consistent. During his contribution earlier this morning he said that the Bill was fundamentally important. I wish he would get it right.

Mr. Howlin

It should have been of fundamental importance, that is my point.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy said that the Bill is of fundamental importance, and I agree with him. However, his attitude and mine is not shared by every Member in the House at this stage — Deputy Jim Mitchell recognises that the Bill is very important; his colleague Deputy McCormack does not see the Bill in that way. It is obvious that there is some misreading of the fundamentals of the Bill.

Mr. McCormack

The Bill could have been important; it was a lost chance.

Mr. Flynn

At least Deput Howlin and I recognise the fundamental importance of the Bill.

Mr. McCormack

It could have been important. The Bill is a lost chance, and that is what it should be called.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy cannot change his mind now that he has put on record his original intention. There is need for reform, that is agreed by all. I presume that it is a great disappointment to Opposition Deputies that the Minister was able to bring about this essential legislation by way of a first step on the reform programme. Of course, it meant that I was able to deliver on the Government's and my promise in that regard. Had the Government not delivered on the promise, the House would be listening to an entirely different prattle from the Opposition benches.

Mr. McCormack

The Progressive Democrats probably would have pulled out.

Mr. Flynn

In effect the Government are complying with recommendation 11 (4) from the experts on local government reorganisation and reform.

Mr. Howlin

That is a dangerous book to pull out.

Mr. Flynn

Recommendation 11 (4) dealt with the question of the way forward in relation to legsialtion to be introduced first.

Mr. Howlin

That is a dangerous phrase, as well.

Mr. Flynn

Paragraph 11 (4) of the recommendations states specifically that various changes recommended to widen the remit of local government, for example, the general competence power and legislative provisions as may be necessary to allow for devolution to proceed in a simple and flexible manner and removal of outdated controls, should be included in the first piece of reform legislation to ensure that local government has the freedom to adapt and develop to its expanding role. The recommendation further states that the legislation should set out the broad local government framework and allow for necessary consequential changes to be implemented by way of statutory order. I agree. That is what the Bill sets out to do. That recommendation of the experts concludes by stating that such a measure would provide the legal flexibility and adaptability to enable the Government to proceed quickly on an ongoing basis.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Those orders should be subject to the positive order of the House.

Mr. Flynn

That is exactly what the Bill sets out to do. For the life of me I cannot understand why Opposition Deputies pursue the line that they are now taking. Deputy Gilmore is obviously suffering from some Committee Stage depression.

Mr. Gilmore

The House is debating Report Stage.

Mr. Flynn

It is Committee Stage depression that the Deputy carries over into Report Stage today.

Mr. J. Mitchell

A hangover.

Mr. Flynn

Yesterday Deputy Gilmore contributed significantly himself to the slow pace taken on Committee Stage, and it seems that he insists on doing the same today.

Yesterday's Committee Stage could be called nothing short of a mini-Second Stage. Deputies wandered away from every single amendment that was discussed. They included references to other sections; they are quite entitled to do that, of course, but they dwelt on some of those other sections at quite some length. The indication was that if there was to be insufficient time to talk about other sections then those sections would be spoken about in contributions made to every amendment that Members spoke on. Such a procedure yesterday meant that on Committee Stage not as much work was done as would have been wished. Some Opposition contributions went well beyond what would be regarded as normal and practical with a view to getting business done, and that point was reflected upon by some Opposition Members themselves. Similar activity should not be allowed to continue today.

Many of the sections that the Government would have liked to discuss were referred to anyway and were incorporated into a great deal of the work done yesterday. That attitude was not conducive towards getting the desired reforms put in place. Doubts were raised in my mind as to some Deputies' commitment to having a reform programme put in place at all.

I do not know whether Deputy Gilmore and his party have any difficulty in attracting people to their party——

Mr. Gilmore

We have no difficulty at all. In fact, we have some of the Minister's former members.

Mr. Flynn

——or in attracting members to run on their behalf as councillors in the forthcoming election. He will be pleased to know that does not apply to the Fianna Fáil Party anyway. We have a very big interest.

Mr. Gilmore

That is not what I hear.

Mr. Flynn

We have plenty of quality candidates.

Mr. McCormack

They are afraid they would lose——

Mr. Flynn

Some of our sitting councillors are not going forward because this legislation has decided not to permit Ministers of State and others——

Mr. McCormack

Nicholas O'Connor and Ministers of State——

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is being unfair to mention names for reasons he and I know.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What we are at now is remotely connected with what we should be at. Let us follow our own good advice and, even at this late stage, let us do what is required of us on Report Stage and get on with the business.

Mr. Flynn

There was some criticism in one of the lengthy contributions before you came back to the Chair, Sir, about the delays in achieving this. Deputy Gilmore is quite right. We have been some time waiting for this legislation, going back to the 1971 White Paper. We referred to that on a previous occasion. It has taken some time to get to this stage and it has been made abundantly clear that this is the first piece of such legislation but there will be many others over a period of years. That is the way local government reform should evolve. It cannot happen overnight. Everybody was aware of that——

Mr. Gilmore

What is the Minister going to do about regulations?

Mr. Flynn

—— but we have made a substantial start by the introduction of this legislation. I accept the regret expressed about the tardiness of the main Opposition party to participate in a joint committee. It would have been a preferable way of doing business, but did not happen. Unfortunately, that led to a delay in getting on to the business. After some eight or nine months of non-cooperation we thought it might happen eventually but it did not. Deputy Gilmore put a set of reasons on the record as to the non-willingness of the major Opposition party to participate. However, I have other reasons which are not required to be put on the record this morning. There was a delay, but in ten months we set up the Cabinet sub-committee of which I was chairman. We established the expert advisory committee. They reported——

Mr. J. Mitchell

You excluded finance.

Mr. Flynn

——and the Government sub-committee considered that report. They made a report to Government and the Government considered that report. We outlined our programme on 7 March of this year. We promised legislation at that time and we delivered on it. It was not a bad effort in ten months and I think Deputies will be generous enough to recognise that.

Deputies Mitchell and Gilmore have quite an extraordinary perception of the role of local councillors. They seem to think the managers are all powerful in every aspect of activity local authorities are involved in. Have they ever taken the trouble and time to read the managerial Acts?

Mr. Gilmore

Yes.

Mr. Flynn

Have they ever read the list of functions exercisable directly by councillors? Have they any idea of the extent to which they are themselves bringing the system into disrepute by claiming continuously that councillors are powerless?

Mr. Gilmore

They are.

Mr. Flynn

That is not so. It is total nonsense to suggest that. It is not what the law provides. If individual councillors are not willing to use the powers they have, perhaps there is a need to put on record exactly what those powers are, and if one had time one could do that. Members who are also councillors should not complain that they cannot achieve this or that or do whatever they would like because of lack of power. The quite extensive powers available to councillors if they are willing to use them are there in black and white in existing legislation.

Mr. J. Mitchell

With the Minister's role it makes no difference.

Mr. Flynn

I agree with the Deputy. There are some councillors who do not wish to use their existing powers and the Deputy knows why as well as I do. He is talking about giving them extra powers. Some of those powers do not have to be given because the councillors have them already.

I would like to refer to one item Deputy Mitchell persisted in referring to yesterday and this morning. It is well to get it off the deck once and for all. He keeps talking about civic honours and twinning as examples of ministerial interference. Somehow he seems to suggest the Minister is overstepping the mark in that regard.

Mr. Howlin

Is this to do with Title?

Mr. Flynn

Section 48 deals with civic honours and provides for action by way of reserved function — that applies in the case of boroughs now. There is no provision and no scope for ministerial direction or involvement, and the Deputy should recognise that. I have to be careful that I too do not drift into that bad practice.

Unfortunately, when the Deputies insist on making mini Second Stage contributions on every amendment they will be disappointed if the Minister does not respond to individual arguments and they will complain that he is not giving a fair answer to this, that and the other. We had that ad nauseam yesterday on another section and I hope it will not be repeated today.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Apropos that, the Chair would prefer if they were allowed to languish in their disappointment.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister is wrong. He can direct——

Mr. Flynn

I will give a further explanation if need be on the question of twinning. I have referred to civic honours and the Deputy obviously accepts what I said.

Finally, on this amendment, the Title is perfectly proper. It is adequate. It does what it was intended to do. I cannot accept the amendment and no case has been made to make me change my mind.

Mr. Howlin

I am anxious to get on with other business, but it is not that no case has been made. No case has been heard on this or any other issue since we started the debate on this Bill. That is the long and short of it. The Minister is blind and deaf to the views of this side of the House and of many people outside this House on this issue.

Mr. McCormack

He is not dumb.

Mr. Howlin

I put down this amendment about the Long Title to underscore the frustration of people here and to signal to the outside community that what the Minister is about here is not reform, but giving new provisions and powers to himself. We have proved that to any fair minded person in the last couple of days. I am tempted to comment on some of the statements from the other Opposition party but in deference to my own admonition to get on with the business, I will resist that. This is a very important signal to give to the people outside who will be disappointed with this Minster's failure to live up to his promises.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, line 36, after "therewith" to insert the following:

",unless it conflicts with a valid direction of a local authority under section 4 of the City and County Management Act, 1955,".

This amendment arises from the discussion we had here yesterday which was really the only serious Committee Stage discussion that took place. Section 3 (8) reads: "A person to whom a direction is given under this Act shall comply therewith". This question arose yesterday and it was very clear from the Minister's initial reaction that he was not sure what the situation would be.

What would the manager and officials do if they were in receipt, on the one hand, of a valid section 4 direction, under section 4 of the City and County Management Act, 1955, from the elected representatives and they were in possession of a direction under this Act which was in conflict with that section 4? As the discussion proceeded the Minister lost his initial doubt and became very assertive that there was no possibility of conflict. The Minister may be right but I am not persuaded. I think there is room for doubt and that there could be conflict. It could very well be that officials could find themselves in a quandary. It could also be a matter for the High Court to resolve as to which of the two directions was superior, which was the more valid and which one the local management should comply with. The amendment I have put down clarifies the position and I would urge the Minister to accept it. Subsection (8) would then read as follows:

A person to whom a direction is given under this Act shall comply therewith, unless it conflicts with a valid direction of a local authority under section 4 of the City and County Management Act, 1955....

I do not think that is unreasonable. On the face of it, it gives superiority to a direction under section 4 by the elected council rather than to a direction from the Minister. When you read the rest of this Bill, you find that the Minister has such extensive powers to withdraw from the local authorities certain functions, that, unfortunately, it in no way diminishes the power of the Minister. I say "unfortunately" because he has taken on to himself far too much power. If the Minister were to accept the amendment it would help to clarify the section and would be of great help to all public servants in local government.

Mr. Gilmore

I raised this issue yesterday and I am pleased that Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Allen have tabled an amendment in regard to it because it will help to clarify the position. I raised the possible conflict that could arise if, under the provisions of section 4 of the City and County Management Act, a local authority made one particular decision and gave one direction to a county manager — which they are entitled to do under section 4 of the 1955 Act — and if the Minister gave a direction which conflicted with that. We dealt with several examples yesterday ranging from the Carrickmines sewer to the location of travellers' halting sites to the building of walls. What would happen in a situation where the local authority wanted to do one thing and gave that direction to the county manager and the Minister wanted to do a different thing? In reply the Minister said that would not arise because the only directions the Minister would be giving would arise from this Act.

This legislation covers a fairly wide range of areas dealing with devolution of functions, the establishment of new authorities, the Dublin situation and so on. Section 3 which governs all of this gives the Minister all embracing power to make regulations, to issue directions and so on. It is conceivable, in my view, that a situation could arise whereby the Minister would be telling the county manager to do one thing and the county council would be telling him to do something else. We need to have the position absolutely clear, that in those situations the county manager does not have to comply with a direction of the Minister if it conflicts with the direction he has been given by the democratically elected council. What is at issue here is the question of who the county manager is accountable to. Is the county manager accountable to the Minister or to the county council? A choice has to be made on that issue. If local democracy is to mean anything then we have to state the primacy of the elected local council to give a direction to the county manager. That is what the proposed amendment seeks to achieve and I support it.

There is one matter on which I would take issue with Deputy Mitchell: that is his statement when introducing his amendment, that this was the only serious debate which had taken place in the course of Committee Stage. I take issue with that statement. That was not the case. We had a lengthy and serious debate on many aspects of the Bill but, of course, Deputy Mitchell would not have been aware of that since he was absent for a large part of the Committee Stage debate.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

This amendment is crucial to the whole Bill. It pinpoints the dilemma of many councillors and managers throughout the country if no amendment is made to this section. The Minister indicated from the beginning that he wished to give power back to the people on the ground. If this matter is not clarified that power will be taken from the people. Having studied the amendment and the section I am convinced that clarification is necessary. Many councillors have indicated that section 4 was a last resort to put forward what they would regard as the proper means to tackle a particular problem in a particular place. If the Minister can override section 4, what he has said up to now will not mean very much to the people who are seeking reform. This matter needs to be clarified. The amendment is important and crucial and should be given careful consideration.

Mr. Flynn

Subsection (8) of section 3 was amended yesterday to take account of the points raised by the Deputies opposite. It now reads:

A person to whom a direction is given under this Act shall comply therewith.

The key point to be made is that the direction must be given pursuant to this Act, not to any other Act. There seemed to be a little confusion about that yesterday so we must at least state; for clarification that it must be pursuant to this Act and not to any other Act. It can only relate to matters covered by this Act and this is a Local Government Bill dealing with various matters and provides a reserve power for directions in certain cases for any purposes of this Act.

Yesterday we had discussions, as Deputy Gilmore said, on all kinds of hypothetical cases relating to sewers, halting sites, planning permissions, footpaths and so on, these are all matters dealt with under other codes of law, not by this Local Government Bill. It is simply not possible to issue directions in respect of such matters under this legislation. The question of a direction being at variance or contradictory to a section 4 direction simply does not arise. A direction under this Act could not be given in the cases mentioned. On that account I would ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment. I might add also that the section 4 power is contained in the management Acts and not in the local government code. If a section 4 direction complies with the law and with the procedures set out in the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, it is valid, and nothing the Minister could do would render it invalid.

The Minister cannot give directions on specific matters under this Bill which override housing law, planning law, sanitary services law, derelict sites or fire services' codes or indeed any of the codes that apply to local authorities. Directions can only be given for this Bill where a section 4 direction is given. It is given under the Management Acts and the Minister cannot interfere with that. I believe that is sufficient clarification to put at rest the doubts expressed. I thought we had disposed of this matter satisfactorily yesterday but because it has been raised again this morning I have cleared it up positively and I would ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister has failed to persuade me, and I am sure the House, of his case. In an earlier peroration the Minister said he has no powers of direction as regards twinning or civic honours, but he has powers to direct in relation to twinning under section 49 (4).

Mr. Flynn

I did not deal with twinning.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Yes, the Minister did.

Mr. Flynn

I dealt with civic honours.

Mr. J. Mitchell

And twinning.

Mr. Flynn

I said I would deal with twinning when we came to it.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister should check the record.

Mr. Flynn

Twinning is different from civic honours.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Why does the Minister want powers to issue directions in relation to twinning? It highlights the case that the Minister wants to control everything.

Mr. Flynn

I was prepared to deal with that, but we do not want to delay the business at this time.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Deputy Gilmore got a little nasty and took exception to the fact that I said, when moving the amendment, that the debate on this matter was the only serious discussion on Committee Stage. What I intended to convey was that this matter was teased out at great length in a Committee Stage type debate. There were significant debates on other matters during Committee Stage but they were more of a Second Stage type. That does not mean they were not valuable; a lot of the debate was very valuable.

To come back to this amendment, if the Minister is happy that any valid direction of a local authority under section 4 of the 1955 Act is superior to his directions, why will he not accept the amendment? That is what makes me unconvinced. This amendment would clarify precisely what the Minister claims is the case anyway, but about which many of us on this side of the House have grave doubts. I would ask the Minister to be forthcoming and to show he is prepared to have this Bill improved even in the constrained Committee Stage and Report Stage debates we are having. I intend to press this amendment because it would put beyond doubt that the one real power the local council have is retained, that is power to direct anything that is legal under section 4. It is a reserved power which is very important and is one of the few powers left to councils. Unless this amendment is accepted that power under section 4 could be further eroded.

Mr. Flynn

It is not relevant to this Bill.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 72.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Bell, Michael.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• 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.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinely, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• 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.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will now proceed to deal with amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Howlin. I observe that amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, lines 3 and 4, to delete "may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as it thinks appropriate." and substitute the following:

"shall represent the interests of the local community to the maximum possible extent, shall aim to secure the maximum economic, social, environmental, recreational, cultural, community, and general development of its functional area, and shall in particular ensure that all services provided to the community are of the highest possible standard, that the environment is fully protected, and that the community is encouraged to participate to the fullest possible extent in all decisions affecting them.".

Mr. Gilmore

May I comment on the section?

An Ceann Comhairle

Sorry, that is not in order now. I must proceed to deal with the amendment before us.

Mr. Howlin

This amendment deals with the functions of local authorities and the new definition of functions being put in by the Minister. The Minister's opening subsection is very banal and meaningless, to put it at its kindest. Under the definition included in the section a local authority may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as he thinks appropriate. What does that mean? I said on Committee Stage that the Minister should elucidate on that. He was not anxious to define local communities or to represent the interests of local communities and there are no definitions in the Bill in this regard. He did not want to include the definition I proposed or to suggest an alternative and the section as it stands means nothing. It needs to be spelt out what exactly is meant by "represents the interests of the local community".

I want to try to put flesh on those very bare bones and my amendment seeks to delete "may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as it thinks appropriate" and substitute the fleshed out definition contained in the amendment. That is easily understood and clear, it tells local authorities what the Oireachtas means what it says that you should not represent local communities. The other amendment involved a charge on the Exchequer but it would have broadened the intention and the meaning of the Bill because as it stands it means nothing and there is no obligation on a local authority member to do anything. I am suggesting a form of words that spells out in reasonable detail what they are expected to do and what they can do. If the powers, scope and functions of local authorities are extended, the Minister will move in the direction I suggested.

Mr. Allen

I agree with amendment No. 4 as it is similar to amendment No. 5 which we would withdraw if amendment No. 4 were accepted. Deputy Howlin has fleshed out the principle which we wanted to have included in the Bill. I am a member of a local authority in Cork and we have a development sub-committee comprising external groups, community associations, residents' associations and youth groups. However, despite our best efforts it comes down to "them and us". The local authority is seen as being remote from the thinking of the people and that must be tackled if local government is to be effective.

I hope that if this amendment is accepted by the Minister it will encourage — indeed ensure — that all local authorities would set up lines of communication. This would avoid conflict in regard to issues which arise. I am thinking of the plan to build a car park in the Marsh area. The conflict could have been avoided if proper structures had been in place. It was really nobody's fault that conflicts arose, it was just, as I said, because of the lack of proper structures to consult the community on their views on issues which affected their everyday life.

Another source of conflict was the Blackpool flyover which cut through an old community. Again the structures were inadequate to deal with people's concern. Communities should be able to respond to environmental impact studies. A fairly comprehensive detailed study was undertaken by a local authority in relation to the impact of development on the community but, when it was published, the community only had one month to digest what effect it would have on them. A period of one month was totally inadequate as they wished to consult their own technical and legal advisers, but the Minister would not extend the time. That is why there was conflict, which could have been avoided, if there had been flexibility and proper structures in place which would have allowed consultation at all levels. This amendment would remedy that and I urge the Minister to accept it. If this had been the case all along, developments which have been delayed, could have been started.

Mr. Gilmore

This section deals with the representational functions of local authorities and it seems that, as it stands at present, it does not change the existing situation in relation to local authorities because there is nothing to prevent local authorities making representations on behalf of their communites. It happens every month of the year at local authority meetings — motions are taken by members of local authorities that a letter be sent to the Minister for Education about a school in the locality, to the Minister for the Marine about a fish farming licence or some other matter of concern to the community. At council meetings we regularly get copies of letters which have been sent from other local authorities about all kinds of matters concerning the members of that authority.

It is the way this function has been carried out by local authorities that has given rise to derogatory comment such as "Ballymagashery" in that when members of a local authority do not like a particular television programme they decide to represent the interests of the local community by drawing the attention of the Government or of the RTE Authority to the degree to which the morals of the local community are alleged to be subverted by the programme in question. Therefore, local authorities may already make representations on behalf of the local community.

Three things need to be done. First, under the Minister's proposal, a local authority may make representations but I believe that the local community would expect them to be a voice for the people of that area. My amendment would substitute the word "shall" for "may" to ensure that there would be an obligation on local authorities to speak on behalf of the local community. That would also elevate the representational functions of local authorities above the "Bally-magashery" approach to a much more serious level.

Second, public bodies, and in particular Government Ministers, should be required to take the local authorities seriously. It is my experience that when local authorities send letters to Government Ministers they get an acknowledgement but rarely receive a substantive reply. Very often when they seek to represent the interests of the local community by seeking a meeting with a Government Minister no reply is received. I have been a member of two local authorities who have repeatedly asked the Minister who is sitting across the Floor to meet with them to discuss a whole range of matters but he has been very reluctnat to do so. It is one thing to include a provision in legislation stating that the local authority may represent the interests of the local community but the question is whether the Minister and his colleagues in Government will take those representations seriously. It is very easy to write letters to Government Ministers but this is a waste of time if they are not noted.

Third, we need to put a framework in place — we will deal with this matter later when we come to other amendments — to involve community organisations, be they community groups or residents' associations, so that the local authority draw together the combined view of local organisations and voluntary bodies and convey it to the appropriate authorities. My amendment would place an obligation on the local authority to carry out this function rather than leave the wording too loose. If a local authority are upset about a particular television programme they might do this but if the public are concerned about a major development and the authority are not too fussed about it they may tend to ignore the matter. Therefore, there should be an obligation on them to do so.

While I agree with the general thrust of Deputy Howlin's amendment which would spell out the purpose of representations and flesh out the provision it is regrettable that we are debating it now. It would have been far better if we had been given the opportunity to tease it out on Committee Stage because parts of it are a source of concern for me, but I hasten to add that I will not be opposing it. For example, the phrase "it shall aim to secure the maximum economic and general development of its functional area" could be exploited.

That is the kind of phrase which is used every month of the year by Fianna Fáil members of Dublin County Council when they want to pass material contravention motions. They constantly use the excuse that if one builds many houses in a green belt area or if one locates an industry in an unsuitable location employment will be created. Such a phrase could be used in a way which is not to the benefit of the local community but rather to the benefit of property speculators and as an excuse to pursue the wrong kind of development. I make that point because parts of the amendment, as it stands, are a source of concern. As I said, it is a pity we did not have an opportunity to tease it out on Committee Stage when it may have been changed around a bit. I agree with the thrust of the amendment which is very much in harmony with the amendment tabled in my own name.

Mr. Garland

Amendment No. 6 in my name is similar to amendment No. 5 except that it uses the word "must" instead of the word "shall". I sometime think that the word "shall" has a Victorian or polite ring to it. It has been used in legislation probably since the beginning of the dawn and its use is one of the many traditions of the House of Commons which we have carried on. Without labouring the point we might consider changing the word "shall" to the word "must", but rather than waste the time of the House I will withdraw amendment No. 6.

I would like to address amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Howlin which is more substantive. Section 5 (1) is very short and states that a local authority may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as they think appropriate. That is very patronising. A local authority if they deem fit may do something for the local people. It might be very good of them to do this. That kind of patronising language is totally out of place. The fact of the matter is that the views of the local community should be reflected in everything the local authority do. The local community should also have an input into all decisions made by the local authority. I dealt with this matter on Committee Stage when we considered the definition of "local community." I wish to repeat that the Green Party are in favour of greater local community involvement not just through the elected representatives but by way of plebiscites or referenda.

While I would support Deputy Howlin's amendment, like Deputy Gilmore, I also spotted the phrase "maximum economic development" and the alarm bells began to ring. While Deputy Gilmore queried the use of the word "maximum" with respect he did not get to the core of the matter. The aim to secure the maximum economic development has landed us in the mess we are in today. Of course we need development but I suggest that the correct word to use is "sustainable". That is the kind of development that we need, sustainable development, not just this year and next year but for decades and centuries to come. Having made that point, I would be supportive of Deputy Howlin's amendment.

Mr. Finucane

I vividly remember the 1985 local election and the slogan of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time was "power back to the people". Having studied this Bill I wonder if they would consider they have achieved their objective. I believe they have not. I am very supportive of this amendment but I agree with Deputy Garland's view on the word "shall"; to me, the word "shall" does not carry a whole lot of weight and I think the word "must" is far more desirable. The amendment states "shall represent the interests of the local community" and to my mind, this Bill does not bring power back to the local people. In my own council, and I am sure it is not different from other councils around the country I have seen that the public representatives who are elected to the council are often suspicious of organisations. If you need evidence of that all you need to do is to take a deputation from the chamber of commerce into the Chamber and let them speak their minds and you will notice the protectionist mentality of some of our public representatives. I hope that this Bill would bring back — and this is the reason the amendment is desirable — a certain amount of power to the local community and that there would be far more local community involvement in local government,. Local government will only survive if those objectives are achieved. I would be supportive of anything that would enhance the status of the local community and ensure that they are involved. Therefore I certainly support this amendment.

Mr. Belton

I think it is very important that the voice of the local community is heard through the local authority. In latter years particularly since most of the funding for local authorities comes from central funds, the Department have more or less forgotten the voice of members of local authorities. We are all aware of how difficult it is at times to get a Minister to meet a deputation on various aspects affecting local authorities. There is a huge gap in communications between the Government and members of the local authorities, who are in effect trying to represent their local communities as best they can. I suggest that something should be done on a more definite basis, perhaps officials from Government Departments should attend local authority meetings to obtain firsthand knowledge of what happens in the local authority. Local government is being isolated from central Government. I do not think that proper facilities were set up when funding was taken away from local authorities.

Mr. Flynn

The amendments to this subsection indicate a total lack of appreciation of the basic purpose of the provision.

Mr. Gilmore

Our inferior knowledge.

Mr. Flynn

The provision is designed to give statutory recognition and emphasis to what is in fact the fundamental function and purpose of a local authority. It is not appropriate, I suggest, as the amendments put down by the Deputy say, that this inherent characteristic of democratic local government should be couched in terms of a mandatory obligation and a duty to provide a particular service.

Amendment No. 4 proposed by Deputy Howlin indicates a total lack of confidence in the local authorities and in their members.

Mr. Howlin

Rubbish.

Mr. Flynn

I regret that. Not only does the Deputy want to express their representative role in mandatory terms but he also wants to spell it out in minute detail as to what they must do towards that end. Most of the items listed in this amendment would not be appropriate to this provision. It was never intended to be a listing of various functional roles but a statutory expression of the general representational role and character of local authorities.

Mr. Howlin

Meaningless.

Mr. Flynn

It is obvious from the comments the Deputy made on this that he just does not understand the purpose of the section.

Mr. Howlin

I may not understand the purpose of the Bill at this stage.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

The Deputy will get an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Howlin

I look forward to it.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy specifically stated that section 5 (1) would not impose any obligation on local authorities and as a result he is unclear as to what is intended. As I have said, I fundamentally disagree with his interpretation and understanding of section 5 (1). It is simply an enabling section; it is not designed to force a local authority to do anything whatsoever. It will be a matter for the elected members to decide how this enabling provision should be implemented, subject only to the terms of the section. This is how it should be and it is not proper or reasonable to take the decision away from them in this matter. I am satisfied that they should make that decision themselves.

What we are doing in section 5 is certainly important. Some people have taken the view up to now that it is not the business of local authorities to seek to represent the views of the people in the local community to other organisations such as RTE, the ESB or other statutory bodies. People have said that the local authorities have no right to be making representations on a particular item even though it has a very direct impact on the lives of the community which the representatives serve. Section 5 makes it clear that local authorities have a general representational role and that they are entitled to bring the local view of a particular problem to the attention of that body, be it statutory or otherwise. Deputy Gilmore stated that and he was right. I agree with his point of view on that.

Mr. Gilmore

I get very worried when the Minister states he is agreeing with me.

Mr. Flynn

I agree they should have a representational role. They have never had it up to this.

Mr. Howlin

Of course they have.

Mr. Flynn

They have got up at meetings and have made representations.

Acting Chairman

I must have order. I have already informed the Deputy that he will have an opportunity to reply to the Minister, so will he please refrain from interrupting him?

Mr. Flynn

——but the section gives local authority members a status which they did not have up to now. They may very well have been passing motions and resolutions which they did not have the right to do but they were doing it. This simply seeks to give them that representational role. The Deputy wants to put limits on them. Deputy Gilmore is right and he made some references to the difficulties they would have with Deputy Howlin's wording. Apart altogether from that why is the Deputy putting a limit on them at all? It is stated in clear and simple terms in the section what it is proposed to do and the Deputy is still not satisfied. In spite of that, the Deputy is talking about local democracy but at the same time he wants to put some mandatory grip on them as to what they "shall" or "must" do. Why is the Deputy trying to restrict what I am seeking to achieve in their favour by giving them this new status. That is what section 5 is about but Deputy Howlin has misread it. I do not accept that we should put a corral around what they might or might not seek to represent. Let us not forget that it is all a question of powers, functions and duties which are the three things we are talking about.

I do not think it would be right to start telling local authorities what their duties are. I have more respect for local authority representatives and members than to do that. They know very well what they were elected to do and how they should represent the people who elected them. Deputy Howlin's amendment would curtail the powers of local authorities.

I am in favour of allowing local authorities carry out the new function in such manner as they consider appropriate. Why does Deputy Howlin want the Minister to tell the local authorities what their duties are?

Mr. Allen

That would in fact give them the power.

Mr. Flynn

If they wish to make representations to the Minister or other bodies they may do so. However, if they decide for any reason not to make representations why should we, collectively, tell them that it is their duty to do so and if they do not make representations they will be breaking the law?

If we were to spell out the things local authorities must do, which Deputy Howlin's amendment proposes, we would — I do not think that Deputy Howlin would wish this to happen — weaken the overall effect of their status as a representative body. We are asked in effect, to introduce different categories of representational roles and I do not want to do that. The top priority of one council might not have any relevance to the priority of another council. Local councils should be left to decide matters for themselves, which is all this section seeks to do. It is wise to enable local authorities to do this in the way they feel appropriate.

I agree with Deputy Allen that we should have good lines of communication with the local communities. This point is covered by this and later sections. However, we must not allow ourselves to run away with the idea that in some way local authority members are distant or unmindful of the views being expressed in their local communities. They are very au fait with what is happening in their local communities and they know how to handle representations and deputations dealing with local matters. We should not make it mandatory on them what they have to do in that regard as this would impinge on their rights to represent. That would lessen the democratic influence they have.

Deputy Allen was concerned about environmental impact statements and the assessments which have to be carried out in regard to such matters. All of us want local communities to have a clear understanding of what is happening in their local areas. Local authority members are the people who should decide what should be allowed by way of development in their communities. This, in effect, is the great source of power local elected members have when they decide on their county development plans. I have always told local authority members that they should carefully consider every line of their county development plan. Those plans set down the programmes for the development of areas in a way which is easily recognisable by them. However, this is their reserve function and they should guard it jealously. The directions they give in their development plans set the pace, direction and dimension of the developments which will be permitted under their code. I recognise the importance of councillors in this area.

Mr. Allen

In fairness Minister, that is a different matter.

Mr. Flynn

In so far as environmental impact assessments are concerned, of course these assessments are carried out. Local communities are always very much aware well in advance of any major developments taking place in that area. All I want to do is strike the right balance between allowing these developments to go ahead and what has often been referred to as the stalling of development by way of a long and lengthy process. I have to put it to Deputy Allen that it has come to my notice in recent years that we have lost investment in job opportunities because of an overly long drawn-out process in dealing with some of these matters. No one wants to curtail people's right to have a say and input into such matters but we have to strike the right balance. This point is covered well by the present arrangements and the new arrangements which I announced during the week and which will be the subject of legislation on planning.

Mr. Allen

That is a matter for An Bord Pleanála, which is totally different.

Mr. Flynn

In a way it is part of the whole planning process, whether at the primary level or at the appeal stage. The right balance has to be struck in all these matters so that we achieve the development which is so essential for the creation of jobs. For this reason, and because I want the widest possible representational role for local authority members to deal with any aspects they wish, I do not wish to curtail them in the way suggested by Deputy Howlin. I ask Deputy Howlin to reconsider his amendment and, perhaps, withdraw it.

Mr. Howlin

Perhaps the Minister is overwrought by developments over the past two days and is not thinking as straight as he should. I will try to refocus on what is before us rather than what the Minister thinks is before us. We are talking about a subsection which provides that a local authority may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as they think appropriate. According to the Minister, this is the representational function he will give to local authority members. He said, in defence of this provision, that they do not have the right to write the letters they have been writing and pass the motions they have been posting and he will give them a statutory entitlement to do that if they want. That is as far as the Minister wants to go. He wants to delimit their activities to writing letters and passing motions. He is not interested in the real issue of giving powers and functions and putting requirements on local authorities by statute. There is something very jaded and dated about the Minister's attitude to this fundamental concept.

Most modern thought in relation to local government does not talk about the structures of a local authority or the rights of individual members; it talks about the community and the need to serve the people. That is the principle I am seeking to address in my amendment. I am not here to fight the interests of local authority members in isolation from their communities. I want to give real power to communities, to people, so that they feel they can relate to the people who represent them at local level and that their interests are safeguarded.

A banal and meaningless subsection like this will not advance that objective one whit, and the Minister knows this. He knows this to such an extent that he would not even define the term "local community". It is hard to imagine a local government Bill which does not define the fundamental term "local community" it is not considered important enough being passed in this day and age. The word "prescribe" is defined because that is the Minister's power but terms like "local community" or "represent the interests of the local community" are left to people's imaginations. The Minister has put on the record what he means by this; he means that local councillors can write letters to him and they might get answers from the assistant to his secretary.

My amendment seeks to establish a fundamental series of principles, one of which relates to consultation. It seeks to remove the banal one liner the Minister believes is the functional role of councillors and local authorities and replace it with a set of imperatives which would require participation and consultation. It does not include the words "may, if, shall or but"; it requires it so that the local community can feel that their views will be taken into account and they can participate to the fullest possible extent on issues which affect them.

On Second Stage I was struck by the comment made by a Deputy from the Dublin area. He said that for many people the bureaucracy that is Dublin County Council or even Dublin City Council is as removed from them as the bureaucracy which is the national Parliament. They do not feel in the periphery of a large urban authority or a large county authority that they are really affecting decisions. I want to address that issue which is at the core of the next phase of local democracy not only here but worldwide — power to the community, power to people. This is a new concept and because of his timeframe and attitude the Minister may not have caught up with it yet. However I am anxious that he would address this issue in a real way.

As I said, the principles of my amendment are consultation, participation and people power. I seek to include a requirement, another related modern idea, that services provided to the community are of the highest possible standard. Has the Minister a difficulty in making that requirement. My attitude on that is to treat the citizens in the community as consumers, consumers who are paying taxes for a service, a service that is often delivered very badly because of the lack of resources and the starvation of local government particularly over the last four years when this Minister was in office. I want it to be a mandatory requirement that local authorities serve the community to the best possible standard and that they ensure that the environment is fully protected.

There is nobody in the House who would argue with any of these issues. I do not want to flog them to death. They are fundamental principles — participation and ensuring that the community is encouraged to participate to the fullest possible extent in all decisions affecting them. That means spelling out in real terms a set of statutory obligations on local authorities to involve the people, and it goes well beyond the meaningless, one-line provision in the Bill.

I welcome the support from the other Opposition parties for this amendment. I am very mindful of the comments of The Workers' Party representative and the Green Party representative and I am alert to their fears. For that reason, I would seek, with the permission of the House to substitute the word "sustainable" for the word "maximum" so that the amendment would now read:

shall represent the interests of the local community to the maximum possible extent, shall aim to secure the sustainable economic, social, environmental, recreational, cultural, community, and general development of its functional area...

and so on. With the agreement of the House I would seek to amend my amendment accordingly.

Question: "That the amendment to the amendment be made" put and agreed to.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister made some peculiar statements in relation to my contribution. They displayed a lack of confidence in local authority members. The reality is that the Minister is caught in a timeframe. He is happy with things as they are. He wants local authority members to attend meetings, express interest, pass the odd resolution and send it up to him. He does not want them to have real clout. He does not want the community and the people on the ground to have real influence in the affairs of their own communities. I am anxious that we would give real power to people and therefore I wish to press this amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister is very fond of the Victorian legislation.

Mr. Flynn

I am glad to see that Deputy Howlin is coming on deck with the Minister in so far as sustainable development is concerned. I introduced that terminology.

Mr. Howlin

Is the Minister accepting the amendment?

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy still has it wrong. I am opposing the amendment.

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

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 64.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• 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, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• 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'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• 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.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• 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.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• 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 Howlin and Flanagan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Howlin. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are related, and may be discussed with amendment No. 7, if that is satisfactory. Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, line 6, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

I do not want to spend too much time on this matter because, with the exception of one or two points, I have argued my case in relation to this section. What I want to do is to give real power to communities, and that is the purpose of this somewhat standard amendment. The subsection would then read: "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) a local authority shall for the purposes of giving effect to that subsection" do what is listed in (a), (b) and (c). So often we put provisions in legislation like this saying what people may do. Most of the aspects covered under the section are important enough to put in the legislative imperative. I have argued this case to exhaustion. I do not propose to take up much time because we are limited in this debate. I hope the Minister in this one instance will accept the logic of the argument.

Mr. Allen

On amendment No. 9, we believe local authorities should have the flexibility to extend their activities. We want local authorities to enter into a particular arrangement with voluntary sector community groups with a view to planning and implementing responses to the needs and issues identified in areas and communities of special need. I refer to examples in my own city where I believe lines of communication have not been as clear as they should be at times, bringing about serious conflict between the community, public representatives and the local authority that could have been avoided. For example, local authorities, in dealing with problems relating to the travelling people, should be in a position to set up subcommittees consisting of local authority members, local authority officials and representatives of the travelling people so that those people can put their case in a direct fashion to the elected members and officials. Unfortunately this kind of arrangement is all too rare.

It must be borne in mind that we are not here as members of parties protecting the rights of local authorities. We are here to protect the rights of the people who vote for us, the 6,000 or 7,000 who vote for me, and I am sure the Minister gets more votes than that. They are the people whose rights we are protecting. We are not protecting the role of the local authority or the rights of the Minister. People feel they are not given a proper voice in the running of local authorities. The line of communication is faulty. Our amendment aims to remedy that and enable a proper exchange of views between local groups and elected representatives and officials. It will allow local authorities to develop their own role. In this I see local authorities having the power to enter into arrangements with, say, chambers of commerce and local trades councils to deal with the social issues of unemployment and the proper development of certain areas within their jurisdiction. At the moment some authorities are equipped to do that and they take the initiative but other local authorities do not enter into that role. They confine their activities basically to the maintenance of roads and building of houses. They see no role for themselves in the development of their area.

Mrs. Owen

I support the amendment. I repeat a suggestion I made in the debate on this Bill that the role of local authorities is to equip themselves with information as to how their different policies are going to interface with the public. My own council have a system of monthly deputations and within that system lies a possibility of extension and involving the public more fully. At the moment local community groups in County Dublin can apply to come in once a month with five items on an agenda and meet with the officials of the council and their representatives in camera; the media are not there, therefore, very frank discussion can take place. The problems can be as minute as removing a gate pillar at the end of a road but they are very important to a small local area. I would like to see the council's role extended to assist those groups to carry on, have their AGMs and so on, and ensure they represent the full range of interests in their area. All of us as public representatives have received letters and have been asked to make representations on behalf of a community association or residents' association, only to find that that wing of the association was not democratically elected from a region. It is important that we assist in ensuring that local community groups are properly represented.

I would like to see us adopt what is quite a common practice in some countries where if a major policy is being changed or introduced the local authorities hold what is essentially a public hearing. They put notices in the local papers to the effect that on such a date in the town hall or in a local hotel anybody interested in the change of policy — perhaps as Deputy Allen says on the settlement of travellers — can come along, put his or her views to officials who are there to answer questions and listen to other views expressed. Maybe then we would not be all the time in confrontation with communities when we are trying to implement policy issues on matters such as our travellers' programme, building a sewage treatment plant or a tiphead, providing necessities which, sad to say, frequently result in confrontation when councillors from different parties find themselves taking a stand against one another. We all know in our heart of hearts that to be attuned to the needs of our community we eventually have to take decisions on such matters. This amendment would allow the Minister and the local authorities the kind of flexibility we on this side of the House would like to see. I hope the Minister will accept the spirit of this amendment and incorporate it into the Bill.

Mr. Byrne

I rise to strongly support the sentiments just expressed. I happen to be an extremely active councillor on Dublin Corporation. The Minister will be aware of my activities particularly in trying to assist him in a general way to build relationships with the local communities, for example those in inner city flat complexes who are in receipt of funding for refurbishment. It is incredible that communications are so difficult between the people on the ground and people in important positions at local government level. Let me cite the example of an allocation of, say, £5 million of taxpayers' money for the refurbishment of Fatima Mansions. Consider the Fatima Mansions Development Association and their lack of contact with the Minister's Department or of proper channels into the local authorities, and you can understand the questioning that is going on in that area whether the £5 million is being spent to the best advantage of the community. It is vital in so many areas that we establish proper forums for involving and inviting in organised residents' groups, be they the South Inner City Community Development Association, who are attempting to build community solidarity within a very deprived section of Dublin, or any other group. What formula exists for the group I have just mentioned, who are doing excellent work, to get EC funding or central Government funding? They are swimming in a pond because of the missing linkage of a forum for them to relate the collective problems, plans and projects they would like to see the Government take on board.

The notion that community groups, in the voluntary sector, should be involved also in the planning of their area is a key and important area. There are many individual community groups in the south inner city, who are independent of everybody else, attempting to upgrade the quality of their lives and their environment. From the Tenters in the Liberties to Maryland to John Dillon Street and the various groups involved with SICCDA, each doing what they think is expected of them — to look at their community and to make submissions about how they think their communities can be upgraded.

Notwithstanding the fact that groups can make submissions when the local authorities are preparing their development plan, the reality is, because of the lack of structures, that community groups can go to tremendous lengths engaging town planners, architects, engineers and draftsmen and make submissions which, if they had power, or had access to the wheels of power, they would be able to upgrade their own environment. But there is nobody there to give them assistance. Where are the community planning officers who should be sitting down with organised groups, looking at their proposals and recommending deletions or additions to those proposals, and, seeing that these proposals are taken on board and acted on? At present, the ritualistic leading of the tenants or the residents into the various honeycombed departments of Dublin Corporation to meet the planners one day, the officials of the roads and traffic section the next day, to meet the housing section and so on; nobody seems to be acting in a cohesive manner in response to the collective needs of communities.

I firmly believe that SICCDA, Nato or the big organisations like ACRA should be facilitated in a planned and structured way by local authorities in having their case not just listened to but to be participants in the process of upgrading their environment and their community.

Mr. Garland

I do not know whether this is a point of order. We have decided to debate amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 together. While I did assent, I now consider that in the interests of good order we should add amendment No. 11 to that grouping because amendment No. 11 is virtually the same as amendment No. 9. I would like to point out to Deputies Mitchell and Allen that there appears to be a typographical error in their amendment. The first line of amendment No. 9 reads: "enter into a particular arrangement ..." and the first line of amendment No. 11 reads: "enter into a partnership arrangement...."

Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacob)

This matter has already been decided. We are dealing with amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I would like to support the whole concept of encouraging co-operation with communities. I have said often in public life that you could not pay people to do work done by voluntary bodies. Organising a council estate and a Tidy Towns Competition can be encouraged simply because good will exists. I am lucky to be a member of Carlow County Council where there is such good will. Often, a grant of £50 from the county council to a voluntary group who are looking after an area can encourage them beyond what would be done on a voluntary basis.

We should always encourage liaison between voluntary groups who are doing public work and the county council staff. The Minister will understand if I say that this reminds me of teachers. Sometimes teachers are very good meeting parents and they look on it as a genuine two-way conversation. Other times, in the minority of cases, teachers take umbrage that they are being asked about the whole set up and then a bad relationship can develop between parents and teachers. In a county council it is vital that voluntary bodies should know they will get every co-operation possible from the council and that it is not a case of them and us. Anything that can be done to improve the administration of public affairs should be encouraged.

Mr. Flynn

I was rather disappointed that Deputy Howlin was pursuing this matter at this time. I thought we had disposed of the matter. However, he seems to be possessed with a determination to be rigid in the whole area of representation. I regret that because it reflects on the role of the elected member. I want to give superior recognition to that role. Deputy Howlin's proposal to substitute "shall" for "may" would not be appropriate for the purposes of section 5 (2), which is to indicate the sort of actions which a local authority can take pursuant of their representational role. Deputy Howlin's amendment would make the provision far too rigid and I do not think he wants to do that. For that reason I hope he will reconsider his position.

He suggested, in amendment No. 8, the deletion of subsection (2) (a). This does not make any sense since taken in conjunction with the mandatory nature of his other amendments, it could place an obligation on local authorities to communicate views to other bodies on matters in which those other bodies have no function. We would not want to get involved in that kind of thing.

Deputy Mitchell's amendment No. 9 seeks an arrangement with community groups. My attitude is — and this is shared by Deputy Browne and Deputy Owen that it should be a matter for individual local authorities to decide how best to involve their community groups. I was rather pleased to hear Deputy Owen's attitude and the example she gave to how it worked so well in one particular area. The fundamental object of this section is to enable local authorities and to encourage them to get involved in making those decisions, and how best they can incorporate an arrangement by way of information with their local communities. This can quite properly be left to the discretion of local authorities.

Different solutions may be appropriate in different parts of the country depending on the local circumstances. We had a good example of that from Deputy Owen. A local circumstance dictated a modus operandi to the local members as to how best they could achieve that. They have done that and I encourage it. It may not be proper for me to congratulate Deputy Owen and her colleagues for the way they addressed that matter, because that is fundamental to what is being talked about here. Deputy Howlin wants to be much more rigid than that. I would like to see an appropriate arrangement, depending on the circumstances, attached to individual local authorities, wherever they are located.

The new framework provided for in Part VI in relation to committees will facilitate local authorities in devising appropriate responses to that matter. I would refer Deputies to Part VI where that is incorporated in a very fundamental way in the whole area of committees. That is the way I want it to be. I feel we are addressing the matter in a proper way.

Section 6 will also help as it will give wider powers to assist local groups in activities of one kind or another, and that is good too. We are ad idem as to what we wish to achieve. What is in the wider framework I am suggesting — it is incorporated in Part VI and also in section 6 — will go a long way to deal with that. Deputy Howlin's suggestion in amendment No. 10 to subsection (2) (b) is an example of another attempt to spell out in the Bill in great detail how local authorities should manage their affairs, but I do not want to do that. That is the sort of approach that is against the whole thrust of local government reform we are trying to put in place. We do not want to be rigid. We do not want to put mandatory demands on local elected members who, as Deputy Byrne quite rightly said, represent the groups to whom he referred. I am very aware of the Deputy's representational role on behalf of his community. I am not singling him out, but he takes that role very seriously and is persistent in it. That is the way we should proceed, and I say well done.

Mr. Byrne

I would rather that the people had direct access rather than having to come through me.

Mr. Flynn

That system is recognised in section 5 which refers to the representational role. The superiority of the elected representative is taken into account because the community selects and elects the representative and they can always approach that representative. I would not like anybody to think that representatives are or would seek to be remote from the people. Inherent in some of Deputy Howlin's comments is the impression — I hope I am wrong in this — that elected representatives seek to distance themselves or be remote in some way from those who elect them. I know the Deputy does not believe that but he is persisting with a rigidity——

Mr. Howlin

The Minister is being mischievous.

Mr. Flynn

He is persisting in seeking to be rigid to a degree which is not appropriate. I do not intend to repeat the arguments I made on the last group of amendments about the desirability of leaving as much as possible to the local councillors, but of course the arguments apply with equal force in this area.

As regards the involvement of community groups in the local government system, the expert committee considered that matter in some detail. They were quite adamant that it should be left to the individual local authority to decide how best that involvement, to which Deputy Owen referred, would evolve. It is a worthwhile aim and it is fundamental to the whole question of reform that that aim should be pursued. The committee felt it is the job of the elected members to make the appropriate arrangements locally, and that is good. Certainly, the arrangements in which one local authority or group of councillors might get involved might differ greatly from the type of arrangements that would be appropriate in another part of the country.

We are dealing here with local power and local decision-making. I am not going to take from Deputy Howlin's contribution on power to the people, but this reform has this fundamental element that local people should make local decisions, they should be communicated with and talked to, but the decision should be made by those whom the community have selected and elected to make decisions on their behalf. That is what we are trying to achieve in this Bill. The expert committee make that very clear where they state that this will be a matter for the individual local authority and that some structured arrangements to facilitate contact should be devised by each local authority. That is a wise recommendation and there is good sense in it. With that in mind I ask Deputy Howlin, and the other Deputies concerned, to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Howlin

In the interests of time I will not repeat the arguments. I am sorry the Minister is unconvinced with the real empowerment of local communities that all of us on this side of the House have repeatedly sought to achieve. The Minister is happy with what is there. He wants to put a skeleton in place with as little specifics as he can get away with.

Mr. Flynn

A framework.

Mr. Howlin

They can be as banal and general as he wishes and if the powers are not developed it suits the Minister. There is no point in arguing any more because the Minister has refused to accept the argument.

We are taking four amendments together. I specifically commented on the first two amendments in my name and I want to comment finally on amendment No. 10 because I will not have another opportunity to do so. I do not understand how the Minister can object to that amendment. It spells out what the Minister means in a one sentence statement in subsection (2) (b): "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) a local authority may, for the purposes of giving effect to that section, facilitate and promote interest and involvement in local government affairs." What does the Minister mean by that? I sought to put flesh on that concept. This is something that is already happening informally around the country where local authorities are trying to involve local groups, particularly schools and children and other individuals, in the affairs of the local community.

What I seek to add to the Minister's proposal is: "by managing its affairs in such a way as to promote open and accountable local government". Who could possibly object to that? I am seeking to add the following: "by encouraging the maximum participation in all decisions affecting the local community, and by ensuring the highest possible awareness of all decisions". Surely the Minister is not adverse to including that phrase. We should be as detailed and as clear as we can.

The Minister talked about my determination. I take that as a compliment, not an insult——

Mr. Flynn

How does the Deputy know it was intended otherwise?

Mr. Howlin

I am determined to try to improve the Minister's proposal. When we had consensus views in relation to another issue before this House at a special committee we created, over a long period of time, a much better Bill than we started with.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is a good Deputy and I am not suggesting otherwise.

Mr. Howlin

I am not offering myself for judgment to the Minister. Thankfully, the people of Wexford are very capable of doing that.

Mr. Flynn

Not all of them think that way.

Mr. Howlin

My record in that regard is quite satisfactory, even by the Minister's high standards. If there was an openness on the Minister's part to make meaningful amendments to this Bill we would have a better Bill. I regret that that is not the case and I cannot understand why the Minister objects to this amendment. How can he object to including the concept that the way to facilitate and promote interest and involvement in local government affairs is in the way I have outlined, by managing affairs in a way to have openness and encourage maximum participation? Surely the Minister cannot have any objection to that. I am willing not to obstruct the Minister in his determination in this regard, and I do not say that in a flattering sense. I hope that, if I do not persist with the other two amendments in my name, the Minister might accept amendment No. 10.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Mr. Allen

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 9, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(b) enter into a particular arrangement with voluntary sector community groups with a view to planning and implementing responses to the needs and issues identified in areas and communities of special need.".

I am pressing this amendment for the reasons I have given.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 71.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• 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.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Burkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• 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.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• 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, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• 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'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• 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. 10:

In page 9, subsection (2) (b), line 14, after "affairs" to insert the following:

"by managing its affairs in such a way as to promote open and accountable local government, by encouraging the maximum participation in all decisions affecting the local community, and by ensuring the highest possible awareness of all decisions".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following paragraph:

"(d) enter into a partnership arrangement with voluntary sector community groups with a view to planning and implementing responses to needs and issues identified in areas and communities.".

This amendment is somewhat similar to amendment No. 9 which was discussed previously but there is a significant difference between them. Amendment No. 9 refers to particular relationships and amendment No. 11 refers to establishing a partnership arrangement between local authorities and voluntary groups with a view to planning and implementing responses to needs and issues identified in areas and communities.

The Minister can readily accept this amendment because it adds an additional dimension to the Bill, which is to provide particularly for the voluntary sector. We all know that the voluntary sector, tenants' or residents' associations, sports organisations and cultural groups are involved in helping handicapped people and helping to tackle poverty in local communities. Religious groups are also involved in addressing the problems associated with poverty at local level. Without these bodies, the fabric of society would crumble because many people, particularly those on a low income, are heavily dependent on voluntary bodies carrying out a whole range of work and committing a lot of their time and money to working for the community.

At present there is no formal structure whereby voluntary bodies can be involved in the work of local authorities. They can, of course, make a submission to a local authority, meet their officials and have meetings with councillors and other public representatives; they can generally lobby the local authority. However, we need to elevate their position; there needs to be an involvement of this whole sector in the work of local authorities. There is a precedent for this; for example, in the Planning Act An Taisce are given a role in relation to matters affecting planning.

In the local government legislation a role should be given to the voluntary organisations which would involve them as partners in the work of local authorities. There are many reasons for doing this, I am thinking of a case in my own constituency in relation to Killiney beach which suffered for many years from fly infestation and pollution although it was used widely by the public. A number of local people took the initiative by forming the Killiney Beach Awareness Group and they came to an arrangement with Dún Laoghaire Corporation to clean up the beach. It started very simply where people went to the beach on a Saturday morning with plastic bags supplied by the corporation who undertook to take them away in a truck. From clearing the rubbish on the beach it developed to proposals from Dún Laoghaire Corporation, which were subsequently funded by State Departments, for fairly significant improvements to the beach. It is a very good example of the local authority establishing a partnership with a community group or voluntary organisation to do something which will be for the good of the community.

That should be more widely encouraged because we must get away from the whole idea of the local authority being purely a provider of services and the wider public being passive consumers of those services. Because of the cutbacks which have been forced on local authorities I regularly meet people from local communities who ask if there is some way in which they can participate in carrying out certain works in their area.

These might include works in a park, on an open space in an estate or on a derelict site. Residents may come forward to ask if there is any way in which they as a community can contribute to the work or provide funds. Public and voluntary bodies have demanded that they be allowed enter into a partnership with local authorities in carrying out particular works. Such a provision needs to be built into the Bill to encourage local authorities and their members who may be reluctant to do so, to involve the local community. I have come across cases where members of a local authority notified the management of their local authority that neither they nor their officials should have a meeting with a community group without members of the local authority being present. That is high-handed and unnecessary and a practice that needs to be stopped.

We should encourage the local authorities to involve local community organisations directly in the decision-making process and on committees. What would be wrong with involving the regular users of a public library in a library committee; the regular users of a leisure centre in the board of management, or the sports clubs who use public parks provided by the local authorities in the committees who manage and run those parks?

That is the way to involve the local community. For example, in the area of housing many complaints have been received from tenants that maintenance work has not been carried out. One logical way of approaching the matter would be for local authorities to establish management or housing committees which would comprise the tenants, the staff who provide the services, local authority members and the management to ensure that problems are addressed around the table. That is the way we should proceed in the area of local government. We should involve both the providers of the service and the consumers in a partnership. The reason I put down the amendment is to ensure that this dimension can be built into the Bill.

Mr. Garland

Deputy Gilmore very eloquently expressed most of my views on this matter. He listed those matters which could be dealt with by a partnership between the local authority and the local community. I am very pleased that The Workers' Party, who might be seen as being too close to trade union interests and concerned more about the need to create employment in the local authorities for their members, are now accepting our concept of local government which favours the involvement of community groups. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment which I consider to be a very reasonable one. It is not based on any ideology but on a variety of positive views.

Mr. Allen

I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 102, "That the Local Government Bill, 1991, be recommitted in its entirety". I am moving this motion on behalf of the Fine Gael Party because only 25 minutes remain before Question Time following which, if there are no Private Notice Questions, we will have another 35 minutes or so to debate Report and Final Stages of the Bill. We have gone through ten sections of the Bill——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Allen looks at Standing Order 102, under which he purports to move this motion, he will see that a motion may be made at any time before the order for Fifth Stage. Unfortunately, for him the order for Fifth Stage has been made. Therefore, the provisions of Standing Order 102 cannot accommodate the Deputy's wishes.

Mr. McCartan

On a point of order, I accept your ruling — which did not take me by surprise — but I propose to move a motion under Standing Order 143 (2), "That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders the House shall deal with a motion under Standing Order 102 to recommit the Bill." Paragraph (2) states, "provided that in cases of urgent necessity — and I appreciate that I will have to seek the assistance of the Chair in this matter — of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, any Standing Order or Orders may be suspended upon motion made without notice." I am seeking your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to move a motion under that paragraph because I consider this to be a case of urgent necessity given the amount of time left.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCartan appreciates that it is a matter for the Chair to decide. Even if the Chair was disposed to adjudicate on it, by virtue of what appears in Standing Orders in respect of moving motions, the Deputy is prohibited from moving it in Government time. Since we are now in Government time, the Deputy is not in order in moving the motion.

Mr. McCartan

The Standing Order is explicit and provides a general authority for Members. In my view there is nothing in Standing Orders which would prohibit me moving the motion. The Standing Order I quoted is an enabling provision which allows Standing Orders to be suspended in cases of urgent necessity. The Fine Gael Deputy has established the reasons we consider this to be a case of urgent necessity at this stage. Given that we have dealt with so few amendments on both Committee Stage and Report Stage many outstanding issues remain to be dealt with.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since the debate started the Chair has noted the genuine concern about the amount of time available but on the other hand the record will show that an amount of time has been spent on matter which is not directly connected with the legislation before us. I have adjudicated on the request made by Deputy Allen and I have directed his attention to the contents of the Standing Order under which he purported to raise it. Given that the order for Fifth Stage has already been made his request cannot be accommodated.

Mr. Flanagan

On a point of order, may I put it to you that there might be merit in the argument that we seek the comments of the Minister for the Environment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not going to be influenced in his interpretation of Standing Orders by comments made by anybody. The Chair must adjudicate on——

Mr. Flanagan

The Standing Order states that a motion may be taken with the consent of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No Minister nor anyone else can influence what is mandatory on the Chair in respect of Standing Orders.

Mr. Howlin

I appreciate your difficulty in this matter and acknowledge your rulings are accurate because the Chair is bound by the decision of the House of Tuesday last. May I put it to you that last week when a similar decision was made it was put to the Chair that Standing Orders preclude the suspension of Standing Orders for more than one day at a time? The guillotine motion agreed on Tuesday sought to frustrate the application of a range of Standing Orders and the orderly conduct of our affairs. May I ask you to see if there is any mechanism open to us to restore good order to this debate which is turning into a disastrous debacle on the very important Local Government Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely Deputy Howlin is not making a case that it be incumbent on the Chair to introduce order? The Chair does not create disorder.

Mr. Howlin

The guillotine motion agreed by the House on Tuesday of this week encompassed the order for Fifth Stage of the Bill and a number of other issues. When the guillotine motion was being dealt with on Tuesday of this week encompassing the ordering of Fifth Stage of this Bill and some other issues, it was contended it was outside the scope of Standing Orders because Standing Orders prescribed that Standing Orders could not be suspended for more than one day. That motion has sought and achieved the objective of nullifying all of the Standing Orders and all the mechanisms that the drafters of Standing Orders put down to protect the Members of this House and the conduct of orderly business. It has been disastrous in relation to this Bill. It is proposed to do the same thing again next week. I am looking to you, Sir, as the arbiter of good order to give a direction as to how we can protect ourselves and do our business properly if our business can be steamrolled through and the entire book of Standing Orders — the framework in which we operate — is to be thrown out the door when the Government see fit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Howlin was present and so was I when, following the order of the business for the week, a matter which would have affected that order was discussed and was subsequently accepted and agreed. The point was made that agreement to the new request would affect the time allocation in respect of what was ordered. At that stage I do not recollect any change. There was some adjustment made which on one hand would compensate for the new matter that was allowed and which would attempt to compensate for the time lost on this matter. There was no change in the order that the Chair must carry out. The Chair must be guided by the order that is there.

Mr. Allen

Standing Order 143 (2) provides:

that in cases of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, any Standing Order or Orders may be suspended upon motion made without notice.

I submit that the Second Stage was taken within a matter of days of the Bill being published. The public and the officials in local authorities throughout the country, the practitioners of local government, had not the opportunity to digest the implications of the Bill. It is only now that alarm bells are ringing at the almost subversive nature of some of the provisions of the Bill. I am asking that under Standing Order 143 the Chair would allow the matter——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In so far as the Deputy accepts that it is I who would have the right to allow it, but I am afraid that I cannot so do.

Mr. Gilmore

On a point of order——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the decision. It is the right of the Chair to adjudicate whether this is a matter of urgent necessity. I am adjudicating that it is not and I ask that the House now proceed with its business.

Mr. Gilmore

The Standing Order also provides for an explanatory statement being made by the Members who are seeking the change.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That to which Deputy Gilmore refers is conditional on the Chair having allowed it and I have indicated that I am not allowing it.

Mr. Gilmore

As I understand it, it states quite clearly that:

the Ceann Comhairle shall permit an explanatory statement from the member who moves it and a statement from a member who opposes it before he puts the question thereon.

The explanatory statement is that we have a Bill before us which has not been fully debated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will all quote what we would hope to be the position. I am asking Deputy Gilmore to accept that as far as the Chair is concerned I have adjudicated in respect of my power and in addition there is a precedent that a motion of this kind cannot be moved in Government time. On those two issues the Deputy will have to accept that there is no point in wasting any more of the scarce time on matters which are not going to yield dividends.

Mr. Flanagan

On the contrary rather than wasting time we are appealing to you, Sir, as the impartial Cathaoirleach of this assembly to consider the facts as they are: we have achieved a debate on 10 per cent of Committee Stage amendments and now Members on this side of the House are appealing to you, Sir——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan is out of order. I have made my adjudication. I have heard more of the debate than anybody else in the House apart from Deputies Howlin, Mitchell and Gilmore. In all the circumstances I have made my adjudication and I am asking you to accept it and proceed with the business that has been ordered, and which is correctly before the House.

Mr. McCartan

As the Member who moved the motion under Standing Order 143 in the first instance may I have one matter clarified before we move on? There seems to be some ambiguity as to whether on the one hand it is because it is Government time we cannot move the motion, or that the Chair accepts the motion but is ruling against it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have adjudicated. I do not know whether the difficulty people have in interpreting what I say is on my side or on theirs. I have indicated that on two counts, first that I do not regard it as a matter of urgent necessity and, second, that I am working on the precedent that such motions are not taken in Government time, the Deputy's case must fall.

Mr. Allen

On a point of order, Sir, when I proposed the motion under Standing Order 102 I did not realise that the whole procedures and Standing Orders of this House had been set aside by a guillotine motion last Tuesday. We have spent 12 years waiting for this legislation and we are getting the minimum opportunity to discuss it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us continue. Resume your seat, please, Deputy Allen; otherwise I shall ask you to leave the House. I want to get on with the business of the House as it has been ordered and accepted.

Mr. Allen

We want to deal with the business of the House in an orderly manner.

Mr. Howlin

I share the regret of everybody else that we are dealing with this matter in a totally unsatisfactory way but the point has been made.

Amendment No. 11 is very important and seeks to have a partnership arrangement with a range of individuals and community groups with a view to planning and implementing the responses to needs and issues identified in areas and in communities. The amendment was tabled in response to a series of requests which we have all got. It is interesting that the Minister indicated he might see it as more appropriate to section 6. Amendment No. 19 in my name seeks to bring an amendment to section 6 of the Bill which would more or less have the same impact, but maybe slightly broader than that sought in the amendment in the names of Deputies Gilmore and Garland. I strongly support this amendment. It is important that the whole issue of partnership arrangements would be specifically allowed for in legislation. A very eloquent case has been made on this issue by Deputy Gilmore and I do not think there is anything further I can add to it.

There is a number of important amendments coming up on this section that I am very anxious to reach. Again I wish to indicate my frustration that so few substantial amendments are going to be debated in this House and so little by way of amendment is to be accepted by the Minister, whose rigidity and determination to plough through this Bill in its obviously flawed state is a cause of regret to us all. I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. Flynn

As the Deputy himself said, amendment No. 11 was dealt with previously and he knows that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by Deputies Gilmore and Garland. This amendment is similar to Deputy Mitchell's amendment No. 9. This point was also recognised by the Deputies who have spoken. I do not consider that the change proposed in the amendment is warranted. Not only is the question of arrangements with community groups a matter for local decision, but there is very adequate general power under the Bill to make any arrangements which might be necessary. I am thinking here, in particular, of the wide powers under section 6 and the new committee provisions under section 37. These are very generous powers. I believe that what the Deputy is seeking in his amendment can be catered for under the legislation.

Deputy Gilmore spoke eloquently in support of voluntary groups and organisations and their role in society. I did not hear anyone express a contrary view. The importance of these groups and organisations is not just recognised but is written down in very simple terms in sections 6 and 37. Generally the thrust of this legislation is not to be rigid. Speaking of rigidity, I could point the finger at Deputy Howlin who wishes to narrow the concept of the Bill.

I want to say to Deputy Gilmore that all of the points he was afraid might not be accommodated in the legislation can be accommodated in the legislation, and the Deputy knows that. The language used is simple — to accommodate the full involvement of voluntary and community groups. It is a matter for the elected representatives of the local community to determine how best this can be achieved. What more democratic process is there than that? For this reason I cannot accept the amendment. The matter has been disposed of previously. This is just another stalling tactic by the Deputies to accommodate what they sought here a few minutes ago.

Mr. Gilmore

I very much regret the Minister's last remarks. When he has time to think about them, he should withdraw them.

Mr. Howlin

It is an insult to all of us who have worked so hard on this Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

All the Opposition parties have tabled a large number of substantive amendments to the Bill, and I want to refer to some of them.

I tabled an amendment, which I hoped we would reach, in regard to the establishment of an independent implementation commission, as recommended in the Barrington report, to oversee the implementation of local government reform. Another amendment deals with what I consider to be a more satisfactory arrangement for the devolution of powers from central Government to local government. We will not reach that amendment. I also put down an amendment in regard to the establishment of an independent local boundary authority who would deal independently with the question of the boundaries of local authorities and the electoral boundaries within them. I proposed specific amendments in relation to Dublin, for example, the establishment of a greater Dublin council. Incidentally, I received a letter this morning from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce in which they indicated their wish to see the establishment of a greater Dublin council who would have an overall co-ordinating role in the Dublin area. It is very regrettable that we do not have enough time to deal with those amendments. It was insulting of the Minister to suggest that there is some kind of stalling tactic being pursued by Members on this side of the House. As we did not have a decent period of time between the conclusion of the Second Stage debate and the commencement of Committee Stage, many of us had to spend the weekend working on these amendments, not having available to us the back-up available to the Minister. With all of the back-up available to him, it took the Minister four months, from the time the report was published, to produce a Bill. We had only three or four days from the conclusion of Second Stage to the commencement of Committee Stage to produce amendments to this Bill and from 11.20 p.m. last night until 10.30 a.m. this morning to produce amendments for Report Stage. I think we did remarkably well in the circumstances to produce substantive amendments for this Bill. We did not do this to idle away the hours on Sunday afternoon. We put down these amendments so that we could have a serious debate on the Bill. It is precisely because of the Government's insistence that this Bill should be guillotined and forced through the House without serious debate that we will not reach these amendments. The guillotine decision has contributed to the fact that Members who would be prepared to speak on one amendment and section at a time have had a tendency to refer to later sections, because we knew those sections would never be debated.

It is most insulting of the Minister at this late stage in the debate to make a throw-away remark which suggests that the Opposition Members in this House are not taking the issue seriously. I accept that the substance of the amendment before us now has been debated in the context of amendment No. 9 and, therefore, I do not intend to spend any more time on it other than to ask——

Mr. Flynn

We are after spending 25 to 30 minutes on it.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister is a disgrace, he insulted our work.

Mr. Gilmore

I do not think spending 25 or 30 minutes discussing community organisations who give their time voluntarily to their community and their people——

Mr. Flynn

That was dealt with under amendment No. 9.

Mr. Gilmore

The voluntary bodies and the people who work in them and who give of their time freely do not agonise over whether they give 25 or 30 minutes of their time when they have to attend meetings very late at night or help people. They do not talk about 25 or 30 minutes. Not only is the Minister insulting the Members on this side of the House——

Mr. Flynn

I am giving them a better opportunity to do their work.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister is providing nothing for them and he is insulting the work they do for their community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Gilmore, perhaps it would help towards a more tranquil moment if you invited me to put the question.

Mr. Gilmore

I am quite happy for you to put the amendment, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"(d) conduct referenda on issues of local interest, including referenda sought by petition of a reasonable number of persons normally resident in the functional area of the local authority, and including referenda on proposals to raise funds through local contributions for specific purposes (the purpose, the amount of money to be raised and spent, and the method of collection to be specific on all voting papers).".

This is a novel amendment. It is one of the many constructive, positive and innovative suggestions to have come from this side of the House. I wish we had time to debate all of our amendments but unfortunately this is frustrated by the guillotine motion imposed by the Minister's party. How dare the Minister insult us and the work we have done very late into the night so that we could try to keep to the impossible timetable which the Government have forced on us. This is certainly not in the interests of good legislation.

My amendment seeks to put a new concept into being, that is conducting a referendum on issues of local interest. This issue deserves considerable discussion. I hope the Minister will not be dismissive of it but will give it reasonable consideration. Occasionally local authority members need to have the positive affirmation or consent of their local area to do things, to prove that there is a consensus or majority out there who want specific things done. This is the first time this concept has been proposed in legislation of this kind.

This amendment is related to amendment No. 16 in my name. We spoke at length last night about the discredited method of raising funds by way of charges which are seen by many people to be a divisive form of double taxation. In order to restore confidence in any method of local funding there needs to be a facility to have the voice of the people heard on the specific proposal. The concept would not apply exclusively to the proposals on fund raising — although one could have a referendum on anything that people sought in the area — but would also deal with a proposal to raise funds for a particular purpose. I am not talking about any basic function or legislative requirement that is devolved on a local authority. I am talking about the question of a local authority wanting to put a facility in place, say, a swimming pool or a particular type of adventure playground that the children in a particular area might want and for which a local contribution would be required. If the local council thought it would be useful to raise moneys to which they do not have access otherwise and put forward a scheme to fund it that would link in to Government grants or EC Structural Funds, they would have the authority to test the will of the people to pay a contribution towards providing that facility and if a majority agreed then it could be done.

Debate adjourned.