Before the debate was adjourned, I had begun to explore the issue of enabling local authorities to conduct referenda on matters of local interest within the functional area of each local authority. It is interesting that this amendment should be debated immediately following the unfortunate — I will be charitable — remarks of the Minister about the performance of the Opposition on this Bill. I am sure that, having had the opportunity to have a meal and reflect on his remarks, he will wish to withdraw that slur on the work of Opposition Members in this House.
Local Government Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
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 mormally 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 specified on all voting papers).".
—(Deputy Howlin.)
The Minister made no slur.
I am glad he is withdrawing the remarks.
The Minister made no slur.
Yes he did, just before lunch.
No.
Yes.
This is just one of the innovative amendments tabled by Opposition Deputies in relation to the administration of local affairs and the involvement of every member of the local community in the decisions which affect their daily lives. My amendment proposes the inclusion of subsection (d) in section 5 which would enable local authorities to conduct referenda on issues of local interest including referenda sought by petition of a reasonable number of persons. As I said this amendment is directly connected to my amendment No. 16 which would empower local authorities, if they so wished, to fund a specific project outside their statutory responsibilities. I am not talking about a project such as house maintenance, roads, and so on which people would expect to be funded from the normal mechanisms. I am talking about a specific project which might be regarded as an extra, for example, a tourist attraction, an adventure playground, a swimming pool or some facility the community did not have. There may well be ancillary or support funding available for such a project either by way of grants from the Minister's Department or EC Structural Funds but there might be a shortfall and local funds may be required. This amendment seeks to have the consent of the local community to raise such a charge.
We approached this issue from this perspective because of the discredited nature of the existing service charges which lack public support. One cannot have any measure of taxation which does not enjoy popular support among those who are levied by it. It is important that we put some mechanism in place which would give a positive affirmation to the levying of such a charge.
I would welcome the views of Members on the right of a local authority to consult the electorate on issues. During the term of office of any local authority contentious issues will arise which will be debated in the community. Several democracies engage in the consultative process of referendum and nationally we do this on occasion. I am not suggesting that this mechanism is any substitute for the representative role of local authorities — it is not and does not mean to be — but it would be a mechanism whereby local authorities, if they saw fit, could request or require the views of people on a particular issue.
I ask the Minister to accept my amendment, first, because of the necessity to involve everyone in the decision-making process and make this facility available to elected members and, secondly, to enable popular support for a particular funding proposal to be ascertained.
Deputies Gilmore and J. Mitchell rose.
On this occasion I am going to give precedence to the Deputy nearest to me, Deputy Jim Mitchell. I will call Deputy Gilmore next.
I would like to support the amendment tabled by Deputy Howlin. It is a very constructive and innovative suggestion. Here is a way to return some sort of influence to local people. I would ask the Minister to show that he is capable of grasping new ideas even when they come from the Opposition benches and to be generous in his response to Deputy Howlin.
Let me welcome Deputy Mitchell back to the debate. I was beginning to think he had given up entirely on this Bill since not only was he absent for most of the Committee Stage but also for most of the Report Stage during the early part of today.
That is unworthy of Deputy Gilmore.
Deputy Mitchell is a Deputy who is very concerned about attendance at this House.
Deputy Gilmore is hurt just because I drew attention to Deputy De Rossa's absence in Strasbourg.
No, indeed. Deputy Mitchell has not been here for most of the debate he made so much of before it began.
That is not true.
It would have helped Deputy Howlin, and me in particular, if the spokesman for the largest Opposition party had been here to sum up the case we were trying to make.
I agree with the principle of this amendment. I agree that local authorities should have the power to conduct referenda. I can envisage a number of situations where that would be of considerable advantage, particularly where requests from local communities for particular works may give rise to a certain amount of controversy. I am thinking in particular of a petition I got three or four weeks ago concerning the closure of a laneway where even some of the people who signed the initial petition had changed their minds as to whether it should be closed. Where there are conflicting views in a local community about works of a particular kind being carried out, a referendum would be a very good way of resolving that kind of issue.
As with a number of other amendments which are being considered on Report Stage, it is a pity we did not have the opportunity of teasing it out on Committee Stage. This is where the collapse of the Committee Stage is such a pity because there are a number of areas relating to this amendment that we need to think through a little further.
First, there are areas of the functions of local authorities which could well be frustrated by the exercise of a referendum, and there are minorities in communities who could well be disadvantaged by the use of a referendum. Take the case of the travellers. In many communities, if there was a referendum about a travellers' halting site, I suspect that the difficulties local authorities already have locating travellers' halting sites might well be compounded. Take also the example of the construction of local authority houses. There are many areas where there would be considerable opposition to the construction of local authority houses, and I have seen where opposition has arisen to the purchase of land for the building of local authority houses, and where, if a matter of that kind was referred to a referendum, it might well give rise to certain difficulties.
There is also the question of the relative power held by people with varying degrees of wealth. In my involvement in politics one of the things that struck me is the disparity that exists between different communities' capacity to represent themselves. There are some communities with relatively well off people who have a lot of managerial and organisational skills, and who have the resources that go with that and are much better able to get their act together and put their case — in this case, to petition for a referendum and perhaps win the referendum — than poorer communities where the degree of community organisation is not as strong.
Had we had an opportunity of teasing this through on Committee Stage, one of the things I would like to have seen this tied to was another amendment I had tabled to the effect that local authorities should have the right to provide resources for communities organising themselves because there are many communities where even simple things like the establishment of residents associations and tenants associations tend to collapse because the resources are not there to keep them going.
I have similar worries about the question of the local contribution because again, while I can agree with the principle where the local community is prepared to make a contribution to carry out a particular kind of work, I see two areas of danger. One is that the Minister could well exploit it because where a community has been willing to provide resources for a particular matter, the Minister has tended to use it as an excuse to cut back on the allocation to the local authority. I could see a situation arising where if, for example, a local community was prepared to put resources into the development of a public park the next thing that would happen is that the money from the Department of the Environment to local authorities would be cut back accordingly. We have seen plenty of examples of this; where money is being raised in one way the Minister comes along and cuts it back another way. The second area of danger is where people with different means live in an area where a referendum would be held. There may be a very well resourced community which would have within its neighbourhood a pocket of individuals who might not be so well resourced where a referendum for the raising of money like this would place an undue burden on people who were in poorer circumstances.
I am making those points not to oppose the amendment as such, because I agree with the principle that local authorities should have the power to conduct referenda and I think it is a vehicle that could be used quite constructively in many circumstances. I also agree with the concept of a local community, of its own accord, having the opportunity to make a contribution towards carrying out particular work in its neighbourhood if it sees fit. I am simply drawing attention to those points. It is a pity we did not have the opportunity to tease this out on Committee Stage. This is one of the problems we ran into when this Bill was going through and the detail was not properly gone into.
Like previous Deputies, I would be generally supportive of this amendment. I would share Deputy Gilmore's apprehension about the question of halting sites and minority rights. This is one of the problems. Our democracy is based on the concept of majority rule whether in this Dáil or in Northern Ireland, and this is not really the best form of democracy. The Green Party have always advocated consensus type democracy.
Having said that, there is a great deal of merit in this proposal. Like Deputy Gilmore, I regret that this could not have been debated fully on Committee Stage. I can see one further flaw in it that would make the amendment indigestible as it stands, and that is in line 2 of the amendment where Deputy Howlin talks about a reasonable number of persons. This would have to be more specific, perhaps 3 per cent, 5 per cent or 10 per cent or something of that order. That would need to be put in before the amendment could be totally taken on board by the Minister.
This may be contrary to what Deputy Howlin sometimes thinks but I did pay particular attention to many of his amendments, and to many of the other amendments as well. Obviously, when a novel amendment is put forward it attracts one's attention.
The Deputy's suggestion to hold a referenda on matters of local interest, that was proposed in amendment No. 12, was very interesting. The idea seemed attractive at first and I considered it for quite some time. However, before allowing myself to be drawn along by the idea I had to ask whether it was a practical proposition. I know that the suggestion would be costly to take on board. I tried to divorce from my mind that the holding of such a referendum would be costly and time consuming, that the machinery would need to be set up, that the issue would need to be spelled out in great detail in law and that many regulations would be attached to it. When considering the advisability of going down that road I left out the cost factor, even though I knew that the provision would be costly. More fundamentally, a requirement such as that suggested by Deputy Howlin — which is governed by his mandatory approach to this section, and that has already been illustrated in a few other sections as well — could serve to undermine the mandate vested in elected members by virtue of the fact that they are elected democratically. The suggestion seemed to run counter to that basic principle in so far as elected members are concerned. That is why I had to put up a red flag in that regard.
Leaving aside that issue, I then considered that it would create difficulties for the practical day-to-day operations of local authorities if many decisions had to be made by way of the holding of referenda. I am not talking about a minor item such as a leisure centre. In the way it was framed the amendment could be applied to all items. The Deputy would make the argument in reverse if the position were the other way around, so I am returning it to him with full compliments. If a whole range of items had to be decided by way of the holding of referenda the activities of many local authorities would become stagnant and local authorities would be involved in an ongoing formula that would bring much day-to-day disruption to their ordinary activities. For that reason I did not think the amendment as suggested by Deputy Howlin was practical, but it was an interesting idea.
The idea of the holding of referenda in relation to the raising of funds is a different matter altogether. I have to put in a very big marker there. That idea would lead to considerable divergence and inconsistency between areas and even within a particular area if it were not likely that the approach would produce the kind of consensus needed to ensure a high level of payment. Deputy Gilmore articulated the issue well when he talked about the differences that exist between areas within a particular administration. Although Deputy Gilmore did not couch it in quite these terms, I shall say that it is the difference of well off areas as against poorer areas which would not be able to generate the kind of revenue required for certain projects. The differences in communities and the capacity for different communities to do certain things would create great difficulty and disparity in the kind of services and facilities provided in one area as against another. Although I am not about to rehash the issue, that brought home the point I made yesterday about the Minister being able to issue directions to different classes in different local authorities because of the differences that exist between the capacity of one area as against another to generate the resources and the capacity to deal with functions for communities. I smiled to myself while I listened to Deputy Gilmore, because I thought that perhaps in his recent interjection he better made the point I raised yesterday in relation to different areas and what they were capable of doing.
The Minister is beginning to worry me.
The Deputy did make a reasonably good point when he said that a referendum could disadvantage certain groups. That probably sums up the matter. A referendum on some issues could disadvantage not just groups but also individuals. I did not feel obliged to consider that matter further.
However, I hope that Deputy Howlin will not feel threatened if I pursue the concept just a little longer, because it is interesting and is worth pursuing.
The Deputy may not have pursued to finality the question of the raising of funds. He may have confined himself to thinking about leisure centres and operations of that nature but I had to take the wider view. I had to ask what kind of fund raising the Deputy had in mind. I then had to ask what basis of assessment he had in mind to achieve that fundraising. First I wondered whether the Deputy wanted a poll tax or whether he was considering some other form of rates.
Now the Minister is being mischievous.
Would the Deputy want to have residents become paying consumers? The Deputy put it on record himself that he wished people to be treated as paying consumers.
That is correct.
I decided that the Deputy was transporting that notion into his thinking on the amendment. The consistency is running through here, too.
The Minister said that.
I decided that the Deputy was thinking of local fund raising, and I asked myself what kind of fund raising he had in mind.
This is very cryptic.
One has to think of the normal kind of fund raising activities that the Deputy would have in mind. I think we would have difficulties with those. Is Deputy Howlin seriously suggesting that the whole collection of machinery for whatever new tax he has in mind would be spelt out on ballot papers? That is the end result of his suggestion. I do not know what other people would do with ballot papers that spelt out that money was being raised for a particular item or that they were being asked to give money, but I have a funny feeling that I can guess what many people would consider doing with those ballot papers.
You could always tell them lies.
An Opposition Deputy made a suggestion about voluntary contributions. That is another matter. Of course, voluntary contributions do exist in community arrangements with which we are familiar. Some schools have voluntary arrangements whereby money is put forward to help out, and they often seek voluntary contributions for extra costs attached to their facilities and services. That also raises the question of equality. As the Deputy himself stated, one area might have the management and organisational skills to do many things that other areas would not be able to do. Differences would be created between communities.
Apart from that consideration, if that is not what the Deputy has in mind and if he does not think that a new local tax is suitable, all I can do is express some amazement at his assessment of what is proper and fitting for local authorities and the local government system. Certainly those two amendments would cause considerable confusion and a very bad reaction if pursued in the way contemplated and articulated. While the amendments were interesting and would perhaps generate a little initial excitement, certainly on calm analysis of the potential dangers attached to them one would be led to ask that the Deputies withdraw the amendments.
The Minister's contribution degenerated from the mischievous to the distorting. It is very interesting that in all of the hours of debate on the Bill the only time the Minister willingly talked about money or funding was when he had the very faint and silly hope that all Members on this side of the House might rush to impale ourselves on some hook that he would like to dangle in front of us.
We made our best efforts last night to get him to comment on the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1983, and he dillied and dallied and danced us around the country, but did he give us an answer, a comment on the clear promises he, his party and his colleagues gave? We saw nothing like it. I suppose we must give him some credit for nerve, for sheer neck, on his attitude to funding.
There is no mention of funding in this Bill, but if the Minister wants my views on how local authorities should be funded, I will give them to him. We are not talking about funding local authorities in this provision, we are talking about an ancillary matter. I will give details of what we propose in terms of local authority funding. We have heard not a jot, a titter of wit from him about how he would fund local authorities which is the most crucial issue which will face everybody after 27 June. Let him wise up and not try to treat all of us in this silly manner.
I welcome the other Opposition parties' comments. The Deputies are quite right. It is a new idea that needs to be teased out further. I did not suppose the form of words would be ideal. In a normal Bill we would discuss the principles on Second Stage, the details on Committee Stage and get an ideal model on which we could have consensus on Report Stage. That is not the way this Bill was handled from the beginning. The Minister does not want innovative ideas. He does not want to build towards better legislation. He wants his own shallow ideas to be enacted into legislation. We will all run to the country on the pretence of reform and that everything is hunky-dory.
Regarding the concern expressed by one or two Deputies on the rights of minorities in particular, I tabled amendment No. 15, which I hope we can reach in the couple of minutes we have left, which seeks to safeguard the position of the underprivileged, the handicapped and minority interests. It is important that that issue be addressed and I hope we have time to do that now.
The Minister is talking about new taxation. He is very mischievous. He is trying his best to distort. Let us get our own house in order. Let us try for once to build towards proper legislation and not be setting silly schoolboy traps. Let us try to get provisions that will involve the community into the decision making process. That is what this section is about. It is not about funding because the Minister has designed this Bill to exclude funding.
I did not bait the hook; I did not provide the hook, the Deputy provided it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, to delete lines 20 to 23.
This amendment relates to section 5 (4) and I want the Minister's view why this section is in the Bill. We have discussed the representational role of local authorities but section 5 (4) provides that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on a local authority, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which it would not otherwise be subject.". I put this amendment down because that struck me as an "opt out" clause, that we can give at least some new functions, not nearly as wide as I would like, to local authorities or we can pretend to devolve functions to them.
What is the point of putting anything into statute if an intrinsic part of the statute provides that you cannot construe it as having an enforceable duty? I thought we were enacting into legislation regulations, duties and responsibilities which would be enforceable. I ask the Minister to explain in the couple of minutes we have left why this section is there.
An Teachta Jim Mitchell.
I will yield this time.
Having regard to comments made earlier by Deputy Eamon Gilmore, I am sure he will wish me to allow Deputy Mitchell to establish a precedent. I am calling Deputy Mitchell.
I will yield happily to this Deputy.
I thank Deputy Mitchell and you, Sir. I want to make two or three brief points. We had a debate earlier on an amendment in my name and the names of a number of other Deputies providing that a local authority "shall" represent the interests of a local community rather than they "may" represent the interests of a local community. Now in this representational section of the Bill we are getting a provision that a local authority, if they feel so inclined, can represent the interest of a local community. In other words, if an Irish language programme shows people less clothed than the members of a particular local authority might like to see them, then the members of that local authority may write a letter to the RTE Authority complaining about it, but if the local community want their local authority to take up some issue and make a case for them, say, about policing, social welfare or a range of services, the local authority do not have to do anything about that. They have no obligation to the local community who elected them.
This provision removes the question of accountability of a local authority to the wider community. In case that is not enough, the Minister has this section which provides that the local community have no comeback on the local authority if the local authority are not doing their job. Normally, the electorate have the right to vote out a local authority where they are not happy with the way they are performing their functions, but in this legislation the urban council elections are postponed indefinitely. The 1973 Act provides that local elections can be postponed. The Barrington report recommended that local elections should not be postponed but that their members should be appointed for a fixed term. Here we are getting a system of local government where the local authority need not have any sense of accountability to the local community. The local community have no comeback and the Oireachtas, if it sees fit, can postpone the local elections at will rather than hold them on the date they are supposed to be held.
I suppose it is appropriate that we finish the debate on this Bill spending a few minutes on this section. This is a classic case of the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. This Bill can be summed up in the Minister giveth and the Minister taketh away. Under section 5 the Minister appears to give to local authorities the possibility of new functions, yet later in the Bill, soon to become an Act, even if they opt to take on certain functions, they may not do so if it is in breach of a direction the Minister can give. He has the power to direct local authorities not to become involved in certain things.
This is a very extensive power. This whole section is conditional. The local authority "may" represent. Section 5 (4) to which this amendment refers ensures that nobody can take the local authority to task for not becoming involved in wider representation than has been the case in the past.
In a sense, section 5 sums up the whole tenor, tone and meaning of this Bill. It is a void. It will make no impact in the sense of giving power and influence over local affairs back to the local people. It purports to give extra roles or extra powers to local authorities.
Later in the same section the Minister claws back that potential new role and new power. The reality is that the one person who has a greater role, greater power, greater potential for interference, greater potential for clogging up the system and greater potential for further clobbering the local government system is the Minister. He is the person who will have more extensive powers than ever before.
Deputy Mitchell, I regret to have to interrupt you now and say, in respect of deliberations on this legislation, the rest is silence. I must put the question.
That is the effect of the guillotine.
The guillotine is on the Minister.
The Minister will insult the Seanad now by putting it through that House by midnight.
This Bill has done nothing for local government.
The manner in which it has been rammed through this House is a dangerous process for legislation.
What will we do about the potholes?
Please, Deputy McCormack——
What are we to do about the roads in Galway?
The potholes are getting bigger by the hour.
I knew the Deputy would come back.
I am here, but the Minister has not answered me.
Question put: "That the Fourth Stage be hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- 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.
- 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'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- 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, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- 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.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.
On the sending of the Bill to the Seanad——
The Deputy cannot raise any such matter at this stage.
I want to protest at the way in which only four out of 55 sections have been discussed.
I am calling Deputy Gerard Brady on the Adjournment.