Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 1993

Vol. 436 No. 8

Supplementary Estimates 1993. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1993: Report Stage (Resumed).

Amendment No. 10 was discussed with amendment No. 9.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, to delete lines 2 to 4 and substitute the following:

"(a) the Dublin County of South-West Dublin,

(b) the Dublin County of Fingal,

(c) the Dublin County of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown."

Is Deputy Doyle pressing the amendment?

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 39.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coughen, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Eills, John.
  • Ferris, Micheal.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Flodd, Chrish.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallegher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Huaghey, Seán.
  • Higgins, Micheal D.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kennelly, Brendan.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Browne(Carlow-Kilkenny).
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Since amendment No. 10 has been negatived, amendment No. 11 in the name of Deputy Gilmore cannot now be moved.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Amendment No. 12 has already been discussed with amendment No. 9.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 12:

In page 12, line 22, to delete "or subsection (4) and substitute "subsection (4) or subsection (9)*".

Amendment agreed to.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 13:

In page 13, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(9) Without prejudice to any other provision of this section the council of a county established by section 11 shall, not later than one year after the establishment day consider the question of the name of its administrative county.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

14. In page 14, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(3) The Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shall, in addition to the functions provided for in subsection (2), have the functions which before the establishment day were vested by law in Dun Laoghaire Corporation.".

We had quite a debate on this amendment on Committee Stage. The issues that arise in relation to this amendment will arise later when we come to debate amendments dealing with the provision of school meals and the arrangements to be made with regard to school attendance. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is unique in that it is inheriting structures from the former county council and the former borough council and is therefore inheriting county council structures geared to rural dwellers and urbanoriented borough corporation traditions. The law applying to rural areas is different from that applying to urban areas, for example, different social welfare arrangements apply for the payment of unemployment assistance, fuel vouchers and so on. Admittedly, a great many of the differences have been eliminated but throughout the range of legislation based on local government boundaries it is possible there are measures which are applied differently in rural areas.

It is proposed in the Bill that the law which applies to county councils will apply to the three new county councils. That is fine as far as it goes and I have no dispute with it. What I am disputing is the cutting off of the law that applies to the old borough corporation area. The citizens of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown who had benefited from the fact that they lived in what was defined as urban areas should continue to carry those entitlements when the new county council area is established.

The specific area where it will arise immediately is in relation to school attendance and school meals. There are provisions on school attendance and schools meals later in the Bill that provide for a red circle arrangement for the old borough area, something that we will hotly debate. It is not acceptable that in the new county council area one law applies to one part of the county and another law applies elsewhere in the county. It is very difficult to explain to members of the public that children attending school on one side of the road will get school meals because the school is located in what was previously the borough corporation area, whereas a school on the other side of the road will not be entitled to avail of school meals because the school is located in the former county council area. In the former county council area school attendance is within the remit of the gardaí whereas in the borough area school attendance is governed by school attendance Acts administered by school attendance officers.

The rural areas have been developed and it is very hard to distinguish the old boundaries. It was possible until now to explain why a child on one side of the boundary was getting school meals and a child across the road was not by informing them of the outdated local authority boundaries from the 19th century which were in the process of being changed, and that on 1 January 1994 we would have a new county council so that the same entitlements would apply right across the county. We find in a later section in the Bill that this is not to be. When pressed on that point during the course of the Committee Stage the Minister explained that entitlements such as school meals, school attendance arrangements and so on could not be extended outside of the old borough area because of section 11 of this Bill applying the county law to all three counties. I accept that there may be a drafting issue here and I am open to correction by the Minister on that, but the principle that the urban local government law should also apply in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area should be accepted. If it is not, there will be loss of entitlement for people living in what was the old borough area or we will continue a dual system for school meals and school attendance which is not acceptable and will be greatly resented by the public and by the members of the local authority concerned.

I spoke strongly on this issue on Committee Stage and I am disappointed that the Minister has not come back with a response. I am putting the issue again very strongly because it is an important matter not just for the recipients of the entitlements but for public credibility in this project. Public credibility in this project will be seriously undermined if at the end of the day, despite what we have said about reorganisation of local government and the elimination of these old boundaries, the anomaly most visible to people — whether or not a child gets a school meal and whether or not school milk is provided in a school on Loughlinstown but not in Ballybrack — continues to exist. People will wonder what it was all about if the same thing applies after 1 January.

I support this amendment and I have tabled a number of amendments pertaining to this. There was much discussion yesterday about identity and the naming of the councils, yet when we come to talk about what actually happens in a new county area we are starting off on the wrong foot. The new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council will have one law for part of an area and a different one for another part. Sallynoggin is a specific area readily identifiable within the county. One part of Sallynoggin will benefit from school meals and another part will not. Children who play with one another but go to different schools will have different facilities available. The coming together of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown has been a difficult process on which councillors, officials and the manager have worked very hard. If we pursue the line the Minister wishes in this Bill, we will be starting from a negative base and it will be difficult to explain why there is discrimination in the provision of school meals and school attendance facilities. Matters such as school meals, school attendance facilities and weights and measures should apply in the same manner to the whole county.

My colleague will support me when I say that the word "borough" should disappear from this Bill. As far as we are concerned as and from 1 January the notion of a borough is dead and we do not want to carry baggage into the future.

It would be within the powers of the council to decide on the measures it should follow in relation to school meals and school attendance facilities but to have the new county council split in two as it would be on these issues would be a very negative beginning. It is something the Minister should re-examine and if he is not happy with the wording of the amendment he should indicate that he will reconsider this amendment in the Seanad in order to take on board the arguments genuinely made by councillors from the area.

I was not going to speak on this as I am not from the Dún Laoghaire area and I thought that on Report Stage an alternative would be a foregone conclusion. I am surprised that the Minister has no alternative and seems set against resolving this problem.

There are already a sizeable number of problems with this reorganisation, some unnecessary and some inevitable. The Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown area, like other areas will have to get used to a different orientation, from coming into O'Connell Street to gravitating towards Dún Laoghaire. There will be questions of access for the public.

Dar ndóigh beidh níos lú airgid ar fáil mar beidh trí cheanncheathrú ann seachas ceann amháin; mar sin beidh easpa airgid ag dul i bhfheidhm ar go leor rudaí. Agus tá easpa comhoibrithe tríd an chathair agus an chontae go stairiúil.

That is very unfortunate because the county and the city are now quite homogeneous in many ways in terms of transport and other issues which we face. The lack of co-operation will also be a factor because of the traditional borough and county division in the area in question. I would urge the Minister to offer some resolution to this historic problem which has been well defined in many of the measures that have developed separately in the two areas.

Cities such as Budapest and other areas outside of Ireland have had to come together for historical and legislative reasons. The Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown area will have to come together and work as one. Any barrier to that co-operation, especially unnecessary barriers which can be overcome should be dealt with immediately before the administration is officially in place. I urge the Minister not to force this to a vote as it will be seen as a bad omen for the start of the county.

I have concerns in regard to this section and with the fact that the Minister, Deputy Smith, did not respond to the concerns expressed on Committee Stage. I have concerns also in regard to the amendment because it does not go far enough in giving equal treatment to all children in the greater Dublin area, particularly in regard to school meals. The amendment proposes to remove the nominal boundary provided for in the legislation between what was the borough area and the remainder of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county, providing that within what was the borough area the school meals programme would continue but would not be extended outside that area. If school meals are provided for children in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area, what will happen to children attending schools on the boundaries between Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and South Dublin? It appears there is no intention of including them in the school meals programme. There is much more involved than the anomaly which will exist following the establishment in the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. It is a question of treating children in all county council areas equally.

The school meals programme is important, particularly for disadvantaged areas, but it should operate in all county council areas in Dublin and, indeed, throughout the country. It is my understanding that the programme operates mainly in urban areas. The amendment would extend the borough school meals programme to the entire Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council area. Would it not be logical to extend it to children in the South Dublin and Fingal County Council areas? This matter is causing confusion and is an example of the Minister not considering fully the legislation and the knock-on effects of abolishing the Dún Laoghaire Borough area in terms of school meals, school attendances and other anomalies which may arise as a result of functions of the borough area being taken over by the new county council.

I am unhappy with the Minister's proposals. He is taking an easy way out and did not give sufficient time or consideration to resolving the anomaly which will arise following the establishment of three new county councils in the greater Dublin area. This amendment would perpetuate the anomaly by including more children in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area but children in Fingal and South Dublin would not be treated in an equal manner to those in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. The provisions are a mess and the Minister has failed to meet the concerns articulated on Committee Stage. Deputy Gilmore's amendment may go one step towards meeting those concerns, but its provisions would move the anomaly to the borders of the county rather than treating all children in the greater Dublin area equally.

(Wexford): This amendment proposes to vest in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council those functions currently vested by law in Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. I am anxious that the new bodies function fully as county councils and for that reason section 11 (2) provides that the new county councils shall have the functions which are vested by law in county councils generally. Furthermore, the local authority legislative code differs somewhat in its application to county councils and borough councils in respect of the law relating to meetings and procedures of local authorities, boundary alterations, application for change in the number of members and other minor matters.

The majority of this legislation dates back to the 19th century. The extension of the law as it currently applies in the borough area to the new county council area would inevitably lead to conflict and confusion as to the correct statutory provision to be followed. The amendment, therefore, cannot be accepted.

It would be no more confusing than what the Minister proposes.

(Wexford): Those types of distinctions are not found in modern local government law. The general local government Bill which will be published next year will up-date local government law in that regard and remove such anomalies.

I do not always agree with Deputy Doyle's comments, but extending the school meals programme to include only the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council area would create problems. It would raise questions as to whether children in the Wicklow County Council area should be entitled to school meals. The matter needs to be considered on a wider basis. The Ministers for Social Welfare and Education have an input in this area and the matter should be considered on a national scale. We do not have the power to deal with the matter today because the operation and funding of school meals is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare and the operation and funding of school attendance provisions is a matter for the Minister for Education. I do not wish to see the school meals programme operating for one school in an area and not for another. Neither would it be acceptable to extend the programme to one county council area and not nationally. I suggest that we ask the Minister for Education to consider the matter in the review that is taking place in regard to local educational structures. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, could also be asked to consider the matter.

Section 39 gives powers to other Ministers to make regulations. I hope common sense will prevail with the Minister for Social Welfare. He may not want a school in, say, Sallynoggin getting free meals and a school down the road not getting them. Perhaps we could prevail on him to consider extending the scheme.

Will the Minister of State ask him?

(Wexford): This is a broad issue involving three Ministers and requires further debate. I agree with Deputy Doyle that if the school meals programme is extended it should not be confined to one county council but should be extended nationally. At present the programme operates in urban and disadvantaged areas, but there are many large schools in rural areas to which the school meals programme should apply. The matter should be considered by the three Ministers involved and not under this legislation.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 14, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(2) With effect from the next Elections to the Councils, the number of members of a Council established by section 11 shall be that set out in column (2) of the Table to this subsection opposite the mention in column (1) thereof of that Council.

TABLE

(1)

(2)

County Council

Number of members of council

South Dublin

33

Fingal

30

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

35

".

The purpose of this amendment is to address the provision in section 12 which effectively puts a cap on the membership of the three new local authorities, irrespective of population change or any other consideration. While Deputy Gilmore made a specific recommendation in terms of the number of members with effect from the next elections, the substantive point is important.

I am sure the Minister of State knows I mean no disrespect in saying it is disappointing for Opposition parties that the Minister is not present. I would have expected him to respond to this type of argument. I am not concerned about the figures which are agreed, but there ought not be a cap on membership.

While some people may say this is an improvement in the context of the existing Dublin County Council, if we look at the ratios we will see that in County Leitrim, for example, there is one councillor for every 1,200 citizens whereas in the case of the three new county councils there will be one councillor for every 6,500 citizens. I think the average works out at one councillor for every 2,500 citizens and that in a large urban area such as Limerick the ratio is 1: 3,000-3,500. Therefore there is a serious imbalance.

Many experts on local government would argue — I am not arguing this — that we should have one representative per 1,200 people, which is the case in County Leitrim, for many reasons. They envisage a different kind of local government system. That is probably the extreme and in an urban area this may not be practicable. Let us take, as an example, the Glencullen ward in County Dublin, where there are three elected members. As it happens three new members were elected at the last election. It has a population which is greater than that of County Leitrim, but despite this only three members are elected. The projections are that the population of this area will be 10,000 greater at the time the next local government elections are held. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to put a cap on the number of members — three — elected in that area. The projections are realistic, assuming that the county development plan is agreed later this week. Provision has been made for a large number of extra dwellings in that beautiful part of County Dublin purely in the interests of employment.

But not as many as the planners wanted.

The position therefore is that the population of this electoral ward is the equivalent to that of County Leitrim, that it is projected to increase by 10,000 between now and the date of the next local government elections and that the Minister is seeking to put a cap on the number of local representatives at three. This does not make sense and I do not think any argument can be advanced in favour of it.

This is the kind of reasoned amendment that one would expect the Minister of State to respond to. I hope he will be able to do so, because I cannot see any sense in engaging in what Deputy Keogh referred to in her speech on Second Stage as local government reorganisation rather than local government reform — nonetheless it is a step forward — and then restricting us in this fashion. Incidentally, I did not pick Glencullen because it was a particular case; the ward I represent, Tallaght-Oldbawn, is larger. Having regard to the industry of Dublin county councillors, it will be much larger when the next local elections are held. Therefore this argument can be applied across the county, not just to Glencullen.

Can the Minister of State say if the purpose of the Bill is to terminate the ludicrous situation whereby councillors completely unconnected with one part of the county make decisions for that part of the county? We are trying to terminate that phenomenon. It is illogical to proceed in the way the Minister of State suggests. We have seen this at its most spectacular during the course of the debate on the county development plan when the Minister's party, as in so many other things, led the charge. The arrangement is that one always gives freedom to the local councillor to vote with the people provided he rows in with the majority in his party when it comes to a different part of the county. While not all of the rezoning decisions were bad, a small number were exceptionally bad. This is allowed to happen because local councillors are exempt in their own areas provided they vote in favour of rezoning elsewhere in the county. We should bring this to an end; there should be direct accountability. In having three members for a part of the county with a population the equivalent of County Leitrim, we are minimising accountability. I therefore ask the Minister at this late stage to respond positively.

I have no hang-ups about the wording of Deputy Gilmore's amendment. If the Minister has an alternative wording which would leave the matter open in terms of future local elections this would be perfectly acceptable. Deputy Gilmore has produced a particular ratio but it is not sacrosanct.

Deputy Rabbitte has raised some important issues which were discussed on Committee Stage. The question of representation, the ratio of public representatives to the general public and the urban-rural divide need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. On the basis of the figures presented by Deputy Rabbitte the amendment does not address the imbalance in the greater Dublin area. It has been suggested that the new South Dublin County Council, which will service an area with a population of 205,000, should have 33 councillors and that the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, which will serve an area with a population of 185,000, should have 35 councillors. This in itself would not address the imbalance.

Given the projected increase in the size of the population, I hope that in the context of the new legislation which will be introduced next year a new mechanism will be put in place to deal with the matter in a comprehensive manner, not only in respect of the South Dublin, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Councils but right across the board, to allow public representatives and through them the public at large, not only in rural areas but also in the greater Dublin area, to make an input. While, there is a need to deal with this issue, the amendment, as I said, would not resolve the problem. Nonetheless it merits consideration and discussion. Given the projected population increase in the greater Dublin area, there is a need for flexibility in the future and to put a new mechanism in place so that councillors would know where they stand rather than wait for the Minister to introduce regulations.

Whatever about the numbers suggested by Deputy Gilmore, I support the spirit of the amendment. It is disappointing that the Minister of State has been negative or, at best, non-committal about issues we have raised. Deputy Rabbitte referred to rezoning that took place in the recent past, not all of it bad. I am beginning to wonder if there is not method in the madness of some councillors and perhaps the Minister's party is leading him by giving him an indication that there will be more people for them to represent and that he should look at other numbers of councillors involved. However, I do not know if they were that far seeing. I would certainly take on board the question of imbalance between the three new counties. I have no hang-ups about the representation in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and agree that any examination of representation in the future would have to take notice of the fact that there will be considerable expansion in the new Fingal county because of the amount of rezonings that took place there and the increased population.

How local should local democracy be? It is important that there be accountability on the part of the elected representatives. Deputy Rabbitte referred to the ratio of population to councillors and the Minister's response to this on Committee Stage was not adequate. Does the Minister have any more information? On Committee Stage the Minister spoke vaguely about a forthcoming Local Government Bill. I want to know exactly what the Minister has in mind in regard to the re-jigging of the structures of local government. Representation on the three new county councils will not be adequate and it is unfortunate that such representation is to be limited. That would not be good for democracy. We should have a firm indication from the Minister that something specific would be done, not vague generalities or aspirations about the future. A precise indication of exactly where we are going is required to answer the case that has been made to him a number of times about future representation.

We should not let the importance of the real issue in this amendment escape us. Yesterday I read a quote in The Irish Times that I heard before but had forgotten. Dr. Tom Garvan echoed Tip O'Neill when he said that in the final analysis all democratic politics is local politics. Given that most of us have come to national politics through local government, there is tremendous truth in that generalisation. It emphasises the importance of the amendment before us which is aimed at ensuring optimum representation at local level, not too many councillors and not too few. There is obviously an optimum ratio which gives the people access to local government through their own locally elected representatives who understand the problems and needs of their area, bring them back to the table at council meetings and truly represent the people who elect them to do so.

The mover of the amendment said he was not particularly hung up on numbers, but the message of the amendment is that the ratio is all wrong. In Leitrim the ratio is 1:1,200 compared with 1:6,500 which is the proposed representation on the three new councils. In Wexford the ratio is 1:5,000. This begs the question whether we should not have incorporated the concept of support for local government in our Constitution. It is an issue that is raised in the debating Chamber and in newspapers. It is never followed through. Perhaps because we have had reason to hold referendums on many other issues, this never reached the top of the pile. The lack of protection of local government and the lack of prominence in our Constitution of the concept of local democracy results in the problem the amendment seeks to address. Representation at national level and the number of Deputies in a Dáil constituency are tied into the Constitution. We talk about tolerance levels and set up commissions to move boundaries and make the geography fit the number of Deputies or, as we have done on one or two occasions, increase the number of Deputies in this House when it was necessary.

Increasing representation at local council level is at the mercy of the business load on the agenda of any Minister for the Environment. The promised legislation dealing with local government reform is to be through both Houses, the Dáil and the Seanad, by the end of March, although it has not been printed yet. Given that the budget takes up most of February, that is quite an optimistic target. However, assuming the Bill is passed by both Houses, can the Minister indicate whether the concerns expressed in this amendment will be dealt with in this legislation? If, having exceeded an agreed tolerance level councils could increase their number or, conversely, decrease them, we would be more satisfied that the ratio was correct and that there was an accepted legal tolerance which, when reached, would trigger an increase in representation through whatever the legal mechanism the Minister may bring in.

My understanding is that the mover of the amendment is asking that the Minister recognise that the proposed number of members on the three new councils in the Dublin area is inadequate to properly represent the needs of the local population within these county councils. We want recognition by the Minister that all politics is local politics and that it is critical that we get the ratio correct so that people really have access to their local government.

In this context also, lest anyone think I am just delaying the House or being mischievous in any way, we are about to introduce a new tier government on 1 January and we are doing this without a word of debate, without even a discussion on the concept. It flies in the face of the concept of democracy that we should do it. There has been no debate about the ratio of representation from the county councils to that regional authority or on the functions of that regional authority. Particularly, there has been no debate about the Greater Dublin Authority which most of us agree is necessary because of the need for strategic planning and general co-ordination of the public service role, given the size of the area we are talking about with four local authorities now in the greater Dublin area. We have no idea what the Minister has in mind in terms of the concept of regional government. It is incredible. It is beyond belief that we should actually introduce a new tier of government in our country without debate. What has gone wrong? Does that much abused expression "democratic deficit" mean anything? Has the size of the majority of this Government gone so much to their heads that they think they can just issue diktats saying that something is happening and that there will be no debate, no discussion and they do not want to know our views?

If we believe in local democracy, local government, the people having access to their representatives and the people's views being brought to the table, we must debate the introduction of a new tier of government here. In the context of the ratios outlined in the amendment a detailed debate on the role of the new tier of government to be introduced on 1 January should take place before the Christmas recess. The Minister may say it is not possible to meet the 1 January deadline and that it might be extended to 1 March. The Minister should at least tell us what is happening.

The county councils being established under this legislation, together with Dublin Corporation, will represent a large proportion of the people. The Dublin regional authority will be an important piece of the jigsaw in making the legislation a success. We do not know what numbers from South Dublin, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will be represented on that regional authority or what their role will be in representing those who elected them. The Minister should let us know what is in his mind in terms of the legislation dealing with the reform of local government, if there will be a degree of tolerance in that regard, the ratio of representation and if there will be a trigger mechanism to increase numbers in areas if the population shift so demands.

The Minister should give the House an assurance that there will be a debate on the introduction of a new tier of government here before the commencement date for the establishment of the new local authorities. He should indicate the representation from South Dublin, Fingal, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown on the Dublin Regional Authority and how the concept we are discussing today will be tied together.

The amendment is a follow through in relation to local government reform and it requires attention. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. The responsibility for representing a large population in Dublin and an increased population in the future is a consequence of many of the votes on rezonings. Fianna Fáil has had a strong hand to play in that responsibility given its numbers of elected representatives. Fine Gael has also been meticulous in this area as well as some Progressive Democrat councillors. Local government reform must take account of the large numbers living in the county council areas and other criteria, such as economic factors. In the wider scheme of things common justice must prevail.

If councillors from the various parties will be responsible for the welfare of new born babies and children in their respective areas, their responsibility is somewhat similar to that of parenthood. They have, in a sense, a duty to follow through the responsibilities of a parent by providing representation and participation in local government. We are seeking to provide for that level of responsibility. The large population in Dublin will increase, but the authority will have a lesser accountability because of a smaller proportionate number of councillors. The amendment is welcome as it seeks to address that position.

I will give an example of a councillor's motivation to seek to have a local authority represent an increased population. That position gave rise to this amendment. A councillor who considered the proposals for rezoning in his area told me he was adamant and enthusiastic that his bailiwick should represent a larger population because he was popular in that area. He would have a greater chance of securing a seat the next time around if rezoning occurred in that area. That is not a good reason for making planning decisions and that sentiment should not be condoned. The local population should be proportionately represented and account should be taken of an increase in the population.

The Green Party hold a motto of "thinking globally and acting locally". It is important that acting locally is still possible. The Green Party, which has only one or two councillors, represents a large population and inevitably, in many ways it will be denied access to the democratic process and as a result will be alienated. The problems of alienation are present in Dublin and elsewhere. The argument that Leitrim has a small population should not be taken at face value. The idea of local democracy is as much to do with the area one lives in and the responsibilities of a local authority to an area do not stop with human welfare.

The agenda that must be addressed at local authority level is one which covers the area not only the population. We are not dealing with headage payments. This amendment does not represent the beginning and end of local government reform but a follow-through approach. It is proposed as a result of activities some of which were brought about by councillors, by economic factors, or economic mismanagement, which has resulted in the population increase in Dublin. I hope the example of the postponement of a by-election, where people have been without an elected representative for some time, will not be repeated in the area of local government. The amendment provides an opportunity for the Minister to reinstate some goodwill in the area of local reform for the sake of democracy.

(Wexford): The membership proposed in the Bill coincides with that of the existing area committees, a membership provided for under section 13 (2) of the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985. The Dublin reorganisation report did not recommend any changes in the existing membership nor did any of the Dublin local authorities or area committees.

They had rezoned at that stage.

(Wexford): This is a matter for consideration and decision in the first instance by the relevant local authorities and local elected representatives should make the first move. Article 25 of the Local Government Act, 1988, allows a county council to make an application to the Minister for the Environment to alter the number of members. A public inquiry must be held and the Minister may then make an order altering the membership. The Minister will consider any representation which will be made in the future in this regard. In 1979 such an order was made altering the membership of Dublin County Council to 36 following an application submitted by the council.

There has been much debate on the amendment. The importance of local politics must be recognised in all debates. As Deputy Doyle and other politicians have said, "all politics is local politics", and most Members came up through the local system. There are anomalies in relation to the membership of county councils. County councils vary in size. There have been geographic changes in the move of population from rural to urban centres.

There was a debate in Wexford County Council about the possibility of increasing the number of members but a decision in that regard appears to have been put on the back burner. I believe it has not been addressed because Fianna Fáil believed that if the number of members were increased, Fine Gael might secure a seat and Fine Gael believed that if the number was increased Fianna Fáil might secure one or two extra seats. Deputy Doyle suggested that this matter be considered in the proposed Local Government Bill.

I was asking the Minister whether it is included in the Local Government Bill. Time is running out.

(Wexford): I will give the Deputy an assurance that the matter will be seriously considered. It is a question of whether we want a change in the position whereby local councillors make requests to a higher authority. This matter needs to be debated and I will consider it in the context of the Bill to be introduced shortly which, as Deputies rightly said, has to be place before March.

As regards the new tier of government, the Minister said that, time permitting, there would be a debate on this issue. It is a matter for the Minister and the Whips to decide whether such a debate will take place.

Is it possible that a new tier of government will be introduced without debate?

(Wexford): I am simply recollecting what the Minister said. It is a matter for the Minister, spokespersons and Whips to arrange a time to debate this issue.

I am very disappointed at the Minister's response because a very cogent case has been made for alteration to section 12. There is support for Deputy Gilmore's amendment, not only among all parties in Opposition, but Deputy Ryan of the Labour Party also supports it. I suspect that is also the position of the Minister's party. We cannot seriously make law based on the reality of local political advantage, on whether Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil wins an extra seat in Wexford. I am sure this was uppermost in the minds of Wexford councillors when they were discussing this matter, but it is not something to be imported to national Parliament——

(Wexford): It is a reality.

——as a reason for going ahead with local government reform. The Minister made no argument against the amendment apart from saying that a recommendation in this regard was not made by the area committees operating in Dublin County Council or by Dublin County Council itself. That is probably true, although I do not know how they could have done so since they did not see the legislation. For a long time Dublin county councillors have accepted that the members elected in 1991 would constitute the three new councils. It is not a formidable argument that the local area committees did not make a recommendation in this regard. Many matters were not discussed by the local area committees and Dublin County Council. For example, I do not recall discussing the implications of this provision for the GAA. I am not a member of the committee that processed this Bill on Committee Stage and I do not know if this matter was referred to but it raises an interesting question in terms of whether there will be three county teams in the greater Dublin area.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Fox's county has a particular style of Gaelic——

They put in the boot——

I am not particularly anxious to import this matter into any of the new counties in Dublin. Referees are relatively safe in County Dublin despite the views on petty crime in certain areas of the county. This is a real question and I imagine that a great many young footballers and hurlers in Dublin who cannot manage to get their place in the first 15 would be very interested in a position where there are three county teams, considering that the population in each county would be far in excess of that in most counties. As I said, many matters were not discussed by Dublin County Council but no doubt they will be discussed in the future. The argument by the Minister is not a reason for not responding in a positive fashion to this amendment.

I outlined certain figures in making the argument for this amendment. Deputy Doyle has drawn my attention to an article in The Irish Times of 7 December by Michael O'Reagan, one of that newspaper's reporters in this House. In the course of referring to the work by Dr. Tom Garvin on the question of local democracy in this State between the years 1919 and 1922 Michael O'Reagan concludes his article by referring to the comments of Dr. Tom Barrington. Most of us in this House acknowledge that Dr. Tom Barrington is the leading expert on local government, has been a lone voice for very many years arguing for a real shift to local democracy. He argues not only in terms of the intrinsic merits of such a system but that our existing system, in addition to its other disadvantages, stifles economic development. In this article Dr. Tom Barrington is referred to as making the argument that “the Republic is now by far the most centalised state in Western and Middle Europe”— I quote this article in response to the Minister who said he would not dare impose on Dublin county concillors a new ratio of elected members to citizens. The article goes on to state:

It is 50 per cent more centralised than the European norm, with a ratio of one councillor to some 2,200 of the population. In France, there is a councillor for every 111 of the population.

In this case, the average is 6,500, a long way from the figure of 2,200 referred to by Dr. Tom Barrington.

I very much regret that the Minister could not make a more positive response in the sense that this section effectively imposes a cap on the representation. As other speakers said in supporting this amendment, I am not hung up on the question of the ratio or inserting a precise figure, but to impose a cap at this stage in an area of this country which is the most rapidly expanding in terms of membership anywhere in western Europe — major development is taking place in the greater Dublin county — and to be so inflexible and rigid is regrettable. The spirit of the amendment ought to have been taken on board by the Minister. I very much regret the negative nature of his reply.

Amendment put and declared lost.

We now come to amendment No. 16 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 17 is an alternative and it is proposed, therefore, that Nos. 16 and 17 be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 16:

In page 14, to delete lines 38 to 40, and substitute the following:

"(3) (a) As soon as may be after the making of an order under section 7 the person who is to be cathaoirleach of the relevant council shall, following consultation with the area manager for that committee, fix a day, being a day not later than ten days after the establishment day, to be the day of the first meeting of that council.

(b) If for any reason the day of the first meeting of such council is not fixed, or having been fixed such meeting is not held, the meeting shall be held on such day as the Minister may fix.".

This provides that the chairman of each area committee will fix the day of the first meeting of the new county council. This will be done as soon as may be after the fixing of the establishment day, by order, under section 7. The Minister proposes to fix 1 January 1994 as the establishment day and to make the necessary order to this effect immediately following enactment of the Bill. The amendment is in response to amendments tabled on Committee Stage by Deputies Sargent and Gilmore. I ask Deputy Sargent to withdraw amendment No. 17, given that his concerns have been met by amendment No. 16.

The reason for specifying a period within which the first meeting has to be held is to prevent any delay in the start up of the new councils as the estimates meeting must, under a separate order already made by the Minister, be held not later than 21 January 1994. Paragraph (3) (b) of the amendment is purely a contingency provision to deal with unforeseen and, in all probability, unlikely circumstances — for example, death or incapacitation of councillors.

I am heartened that the Minister of State has seen fit to amend the Bill to some extent so as to allow for greater decision making at local level.

Earlier the Minister of State said he was not keen to meddle in the affairs of the council. It would be very encouraging if this was the case in all circumstances. Unfortunately, we normally see the reverse of that sentiment in legislation.

Fixing the date of a meeting is not a major issue. One of the principles of The Green Party is that decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level. Surely we can trust councillors and their chairpersons to be of sufficient sound mind and body to fix the date of a meeting. I ask the Minister of State to consider the extent to which the Minister will be able to meddle in the affairs of the councils under the Bill. It should not be necessary for me to put down an amendment which proposes that a simple decision-making power should be taken out of the hands of the Minister and given back to the county councils. It is disappointing that this type of amendment has to be put down.

It was disappointing also to hear the Minister of State talk about interference, perhaps unwittingly, in other local authority matters — for example, whether pupils should get school meals, etc. Such a matter should not even enter into the debate. This is a matter for local authorities. If the Wicklow and South Dublin County Councils want to provide meals for pupils then they should be allowed to do so. The Minister should not be concerned about such minor issues. There are many areas of national importance which would better occupy his mind — for example, the crisis in regard to waste. The naming of the councils should be a matter for the councils themselves and should not be debated in this House.

God forbid that any of the cathaoirligh of the councils will pass away or abscond; indeed, I hope Deputy Rabbitte will be with us for many years to come. Paragraph (3) (b) of the amendment covers the most unlikely of events and tends to keep the bata mór of the Minister in the background. Perhaps it is underneath the desk, but it is still there. I am not sure that this is necessary. I will not push this point as I regard the eventuality covered in paragraph (3) (b) of the amendment to be very unlikely.

Much reference has been made to the powers of the Minister. The number of choices proposed in the amendment is so limited that I believe the Minister must have learned something from Henry Ford, who said that one could have any colour of car so long as it was black. The Minister is proposing a similar limitation in this amendment. I do not know if there is much point in having these amendments put to a vote, but I would once again point out to the Minister that there is no use in him pretending to give power to the councils if he is not genuinely going to do so. He either gives the councils power or he does not; a half-hearted gesture is not good enough in this regard.

I welcome the main thrust of the amendment, which takes on board the substance of Deputy Sargent's amendment. Why is the Minister restricting the period to ten days?

It is a big choice.

A chathoirleach could be ill or abroad on business or pleasure when the order fixing the establishment day is made. If the order is made on a Monday, the agenda for the meeting will probably be posted to members on Tuesday. Most of them will receive it on Wednesday while others, due to the vagaries of our postal system, will not receive it until Thursday and the meeting will have to be held before the following Thursdays. This is very restrictive. Once the order fixing the establishment day of the councils is made, a meeting will have to be called within 24 or 48 hours. What is so important about the period of ten days? Why was it decided not to give the councils 14 days within which they would have to hold a meeting. Is there a reason which I do not understand why the meetings will have to be held instantly? Some formalities will have to be gone through at the first meeting and the ten day period could be very restrictive in practice. For example, it may not suit the relevant cathaoirleach to hold a meeting within that period. Further consideration needs to be given to this point.

Having been a junior Minister, I know that the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, has a certain brief and has been told whether to say yes or no to our amendments before he has even heard our arguments. He does not have the liberty to make decisions on our amendments. Effectively, he is not his own man in this debate; the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, will have told him to say certain things. As a result we are going through the performance of making cases for our amendments in the knowledge that our arguments are falling on deaf ears.

If a case can be made for extending the period to 14 days, I ask the Minister not to merely read out the note he got this morning before he even heard the argument. Perhaps there is a good legal reason why the meeting must be held within ten days. If there is, I would be glad to listen to it. However, having been a member of a local authority for 19 years, I believe that tying a Cathaoirleach to holding the first meeting of the council within ten days could give rise to logistical difficulties. I would give the Cathaoirligh the power to call the first meeting within 21 days so as to enable any problems which may arise to be dealt with. I believe the Cathaoirligh would like to be present at the first meetings of the councils and I should like them to be given some latitude if they cannot attend because of illness or work. I ask the Minister to replace the period of ten days with a period of 21 days so as to make the provision more workable and manageable.

I thank Deputy Sargent for his kind wishes for my health.

The Minister was casting doubt on it.

I wish to avail of this opportunity to remind the House that in supporting the thrust of the Bill, if not the detail, I am voting myself out of office. Since nobody else has recorded the fact for the House, I think it is necessary to say that such an act of selflessness has not been seen in this House for some considerable time.

It is like a turkey voting for Christmas.

It is remarkable that this is the second time my activity in this House has cost me my job.

Having said all that and acknowledged the good wishes of Deputy Sargent and others, I have a query for the Minister about the ten day period proposed in the amendment. What would be the position if it was felt necessary or desirable to extend the deadline beyond 31 December in order to facilitate, for example, the making of a development plan?

The Minister will be aware that there is a legal challenge to the plan. He will know also that an ex parte injunction has been granted to a community organisation and that no date has been set for the judicial review that has been granted by the courts. We have scheduled Friday of this week for the final issuing of the plan after five and a half years work. If, for example, that meeting cannot go ahead or is unable to complete the plan or if it is unable to reach agreement and, apropos the earlier argument about the ratio and the number of councillors, difficulties may arise. It is a council comprised of 78 members, and apart from the Dáil it is the largest democratic gathering in the State, it is larger than the Seanad. Difficulties may well be posed, I cannot anticipate that but having spent five and a half years working on this plan, and notwithstanding the enormous criticism it has attracted, I took the view from the outset that the plan ought to be completed. I would like to see the Minister exercise his right under the 1963 Act after certain matters in the plan and to exercise his power to change a small number of decisions but that will come only into play after the plan is made and the seal is affixed by Dublin County Council.

What happens if, arising from the legal challenge, we are unable to proceed to completion of the plan in terms of the Minister's amendment which states that it shall be "a day not later than ten days after the establishment day"? Where precisely does that leave us? For example, what would happen if a majority of the council considered that it would take us until some date in January to complete the process? I say this conscious of the fact that a number of councillors, including, perhaps, Deputies Gilmore and Sargent, might think it a good idea if the plan was not made having regard to the number of rezonings that are unacceptable to them. I attended a meeting recently in my constituency where a Cabinet Minister argued it was desirable that the collapse of the plan ought to be contrived because of the number of rezonings that were unacceptable to him. It is fair to point out to him that as a member of the Cabinet he has close access to the Minister for the Environment and no doubt will use that contact to give effect to challenge the changes he finds so unacceptable. I am sure he will do that and will tell his constituents in Tallaght that he is doing so.

That leaves us with very little doubt.

I am continuing to talk to give the Minister of State adequate time to get a considered response from his officials on this because it is an important matter. If we pass the Minister's amendment, does it not greatly restrict us in any freedom that we might have had and that we might yet have to have recourse to?

(Wexford): To deal with Deputy Doyle's question first, it is obvious that this amendment provides the chairman with the power to fix the first meeting of the new council and that will be done in 1994. The first meeting of the new council will be held in 1994, not later than ten days after the establishment date, the reason being that the estimates meeting was already fixed by the Minister for 21 January. Therefore, there cannot be a time lag in between. The first meeting will be ten days from the establishment date and 21 January is the date set for the estimates meeting. The Minister has made that order.

I can assure Deputy Rabbitte and others that whether the plan is adopted, with or without the Robswall rezonine, before the end of the year, in conformity with any orders made by the courts, the actual position is that a valid development plan, either the adopted plan or the current 1983 plan will be in existence on the establishment day. Article 7 of the Second Schedule provides that whatever development plans are in operation at the end of this year become the development plans for the three new counties in so far as they relate to each area.

That leaves it hanging rather dangerously. May I ask the Minister to consider increasing the ten days to 14, if we are looking at the first fortnight in January which is what he is saying. I do not see why the Minister cannot give a little latitude to the three councils to gather their members. Will the Minister simply say "yes" or "no"? It is an important issue and a very important point has arisen from Deputy Rabbitte's last contribution.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Carlow-Kilkenny): Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and amendment No. 20 is an alternative to No. 19. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 be discussed together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 17, line 14, after "transfer." to insert "Every post held by such an employee shall be deemed to become a post under the county council to which its holder is so designated or deemed to be so designated for transfer.".

As I said, I was not a member of the select committee that processed the Bill and I do not know how much attention this matter received. Perhaps my colleagues are more familiar with it but an important point is being sought to be made in amendment No. 18, and amendment No. 20 is related. This amendment seeks to insert effectively a new section or a continuation of that section that would require that every post held by such an employee shall be deemed to become a post under the county council to which its holder is so designated or deemed to be so designated for transfer.

The main point in this amendment is that there is a difference in the treatment of officer grades from non-officer grades or servant grades as they were known in the past. In other words, if there are 30 posts in the existing Dublin County Council and if, having regard to the reorganisation process that is virtually complete within Dublin County Council, there are, say, two vacancies, as I understand the Bill it requires those vacancies to be filled by whichever is the relevant new council and it protects those posts in that situation. That presumably would mean that two new persons would be recruited in due course and the positions are protected. However, that protection does not extend to the bulk of county council employees and it seeks to reintroduce an invidious distinction as between officer and servant grade. In other words, one might have a situation where 30 people are working on refuse bins collections at any given depot and if there is a shortfall of two posts due to retirement, illness or whatever, there is no guarantee that those posts are protected.

That is the worry in the case of what happened resulting from of the MacSharry proposals in respect of the early retirement/voluntary redundancy package introduced within the term of office of the 1987 to 1989 Government. I suppose this would not be unique to Dublin County Council, but in the case of Dublin County Council, unfortunately, what happened was that those who offered to accept the severance terms were concentrated at the coal face. In other words, it was the blue collar workers who in the main opted for redundancy. This resulted in there being few enough takers from the white collar, professional or technical area; but in the case of the people who had to go out and implement the decisions of the council in regard to environmental works, refuse collection and so on, it was there that the "down sliding", to use that dreadful term, took place.

I would be worried that the position would be exacerbated by this. I do not know why it has been found necessary to draw a distinction between officer and non-officer grades. Essentially, the object of Deputy Gilmore's amendments, Nos. 18 and 20, is to provide a safeguard against that eventuality.

In the case of Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 18, I might point out that these people are in the post already. In the case of amendment No. 20, we are talking about circumstances in which the process has begun, the jobs have been advertised, or whatever is necessary will have been completed. It is an important point from the industrial relations point of view, from the manpower planning point of view and indeed the point of view of people who work for Dublin County Council at present. I should like to hear the Minister's response.

(Wexford): Deputy Gilmore's amendments Nos. 18 and 20 relate to employees of the dissolved bodies who will transfer to the three new local authorities. First, I should like to draw Deputies' attention to section 17 (7), which applies to officers and employees. The provisions of this subsection give a clear commitment that no worsening in pay or conditions of service will arise as a result of the transfers. Second, the position is that the arrangements for transfers have been agreed locally between management and the unions concerned. I should like to express my appreciation to all concerned of the effort put in by all sides in reaching such a satisfactory conclusion. In so far as staffing is concerned, the provisions of this Bill are limited to the arrangements for the transfer of staff from the dissolved bodies to the new local authorities. The relevant provision in the Bill must take on board existing law relating to officers and other employees.

Detailed provisions relating to officers of local authorities are contained in a number of Local Government Acts and regulations. These include the regulation of the creation and abolition of offices, the procedures for the making of appointments, the remuneration of officers, the control of officers, their suspension and removal from office and so on. In the case of the creation and abolition of officers, for example, the Minister's sanction is required. It is for that reason that certain detail in relation to offices is included in the present Bill. On the other hand, the employment of persons as local authority non-officers is governed by general legislation and practice. Indeed, the local government legislative code does not contain any provisions in relation to posts held by such employees. Any questions arising in relation to the creation and abolition of such posts is a matter entirely for the local authority concerned. It is for that reason that the detail contained in amendments Nos. 18 and 20 in relation to the transfer of employee posts is not considered appropriate.

However, I accept that it is desirable to put beyond doubt the position of any person who may be in the course of being offered employment in a non-officer post by any of the existing local authorities on the establishment day, that is any person who is midstream, so to speak, on that day. My amendment No. 19 will ensure that this process is completed following the establishment of the new counties, rendering it clear that on appointment such person will automatically become an employee of the local authority specified in the relevant designation of the post concerned under the 1993 regulations. My amendment No. 19 to a large extent meets the concerns expressed in Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 20.

Deputies will appreciate that the wider, somewhat complex question of the legal and other provisions applicable to the terms and conditions of officers and employees would not be appropriate to this Bill, which in general in relation to staffing is limited to the arrangements for the transfer of staff from the dissolved bodies to the new local authorities being created.

At the beginning of his intervention the Minister referred to a subsection of the Bill that protected existing employees and officers. Could he please refer me to that subsection again?

(Wexford): I said that I should like to draw Deputies' attention to section 17 (7), which applies to officers and also to employees and which gives a clear commitment that no worsening in pay or conditions of service will arise resulting from the relevant transfers.

I note that section 17 (7) reads:

Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned...

May I seek the Minister's opinion in terms of that subsection and what he has read out in support of his amendment? What does he consider would be the position of somebody who might not fall into either of those categories or definitions — for example, somebody who might have a very long-standing contract of service with Dublin County Council? Is such a person similarly protected as is provided for in section 17 (7)?

(Wexford): As far as I understand the position, the overall arrangements have been agreed locally. Deputy Rabbitte is talking about people who would not fall into either category. Does he mean those engaged in contract work or——

Yes, who might not fall into either category.

(Wexford): My information is to the effect that all agreements have been reached locally in relation to all categories; in other words, with the exception of employees, people brought in to undertake contract work of any nature. I will have that point clarified for the Deputy later.

It is a possible further invidious distinction. Here the amendments address the question of enshrining in the new Bill a distinction as between the treatment of officers and protection of officer grades as compared with non-officer grades. Here is a possible — I emphasise "possible"— further invidious distinction whereby conceivably there will have been people working for Dublin County Council for some considerable time past might not fall into either of those categories.

I am not endeavouring to score any point off the Minister here because I know he has not been dealing with the detailed provisions of this Bill, but when he says that he has been assured agreement has been reached at local level on these matters, I should like to believe that that is the position. However, I have some reason to believe that that is not the position. I would have thought that the rights of any such workers would be protected within the spirit of the legislation generally, that is, that nobody would find themselves in an inferior post with an attendant loss of income and so on. I should like to think that that criterion would apply, that distinctions would not be drawn, leaving anybody, especially anyone with a considerable period of service with Dublin County Council, in circumstances in which they are deprived of their livelihood or whatever.

(Wexford): For Deputy Rabbitte's information — this is in paragraph (3) of the Second Schedule, dealing with the preservation of continuing contracts — I am reliably informed that existing contracts will continue after the three new local authorities will have come into being. Therefore, if under existing arrangements people have contracts, they will be continued under the auspices of the three new local authorities when they come into being on 1 January next.

Is the Minister saying that section 3 would preserve existing contracts?

(Wexford): That is correct. If, for example, a person on contract is doing consultancy work for say, Dún Laoghaire Council, that will continue under the new council until such time as the contract expires.

Amendment put and declared lost.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 19:

In page 17, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(4) Where on or before the establishment day it is proposed to appoint a person as an employee pursuant to Article 8 (3) of the Regulations of 1993, such person shall, on appointment, become an employee of the county council specified in the designation made under the aforementioned Article.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 17, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(4) Every post of a dissolved body, which is vacant on the establishment day, and to which it is proposed to make an appointment shall, on the establishment day, transfer to and become a post under the county council to which its appointee is so designated for transfer. A person appointed to such a post shall, on appointment, become an employee of the county council to which the post was, on the establishment day, transferred.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman

We come to amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 22 is consequential. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 21 and 22 be discussed together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 18, line 4, to delete "three" and substitute "four".

Earlier this morning we discussed the importance of getting the representation ratio correct and the importance of local democracy on the basis that all politics are local politics. This amendment is a further extension of that principle. The proposed representation from the three new county councils on the Eastern Health Board would leave Dubliners with a much less satisfactory ratio of representation than those in neighbouring counties of Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. The ratio is completely out of balance with that of the neighbouring counties. In view of the importance of proper local representation and of the need for the issues in each locality to be properly brought to the table and articulated, I consider that four representatives from each of the three new county councils would bring the ratio more in line with the other county councils that have representatives on the Eastern Health Board. Without rehearsing the argument we had earlier about the need for the correct ratio and and the need for local representation, I ask the Minister to accept the proposed amendment.

We had a long discussion on this and similar amendments on Committee Stage. We are concerned here with the principle of equity. As Deputy Doyle has rightly said the representation on the Eastern Health Board is 1:68,000 constituents whereas in the neighbouring constituency of Wicklow the ratio is 1:43,000 constituents. We have said much about local democracy and and about giving power to local representatives. It seems a nonsense then to continue to curtail the representation of local representatives. Even on the numbers game it makes sense to make the proposed change.

This is a small amendment but it is a serious one which has implications for each of the new councils. From the point of view of treating the setting up of the new councils with due seriousness, acceptance of this amendment would make enormous sense. Also it would indicate a willingness by the Minister to listen to the local representatives as well as representatives from other areas who are concerned with equity.

I am not sure that I agree with all the politics which Tip O'Neill engaged in. I recall reading his biography and being struck by the phrase "all politics are local". It behoves every representative to fight for democracy at its truest level. In relation to health boards it would be appropriate for the Minister to give a positive response.

(Wexford): The effect of these amendments, which were discussed at length on Committee Stage, would be to allow each of the new councils to appoint four members to the Eastern Health Board. Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation between them appoint six members to the health board and the proposal in the Bill provides for three members to be appointed by each of the new county councils — a 50 per cent increase in the present representation.

As indicated by the Minister on Committee Stage, the proposal in the Bill represents a very favourable outcome for the new councils given that the Eastern Health Board will have the highest proportion of local authority members of all the health boards. Acceptance of the amendments tabled would further increase the level of local authority representation on the health board. This has implications for the overall composition of the board with increased representation likely to be demanded by medical and other interests.

The question of the effectiveness and efficient operation of a much enlarged board also arises. Furthermore, Dublin Corporation, with an equivalent population to that of the three new councils, has seven members and would, no doubt, feel an increase in their membership was also justified. If that were to happen the board would become unwieldy, unmanageable and unworkable.

The Department of Health is also preparing a national health strategy and the organisational structures in the Eastern Health Board area are under review by the Minister for Health who will introduce any required legislation. I do not see any merit in the argument that the new councils will be underrepresented on the health board vis-á-vis Wicklow and Kildare. I do not consider it appropriate to increase their level of representation above three because of the distortions it would cause and the demands it would place for greater representation from the non-local authority sector and also from, possibly, Dublin Corporation.

I want to talk about a distortion, but not that referred to by the Minster. He has referred to the combined representation of the three new councils being increased from an existing level of six to nine and stated that that was an increase of 50 per cent. What he has omitted to tell us is that the population which these people serve has almost trebled since that level of representation was established in 1970. When the representation was decided under the Health Act — four for Dublin Corporation and two for Dún Laoghaire Corporation — the combined population of Dublin county and Dún Laoghaire was around 200,000. The combined population of the three new counties is of the order of 600,000 people. We are talking about a period, during which the population has exploded and with it the health needs of the people and the demands on the health services. We are talking about the huge demands on community care provided by the health boards, hospital services and medical services.

When the Minister speaks about distorting the ratio of representation between public representatives and the other categories who are represented on the health boards, he is saying in effect that the people who represent the interests of the patients should have their number kept down. The number of people to whom health services is delivered has increased enormously and with that should go a corresponding increase in the level of representation through elected representatives. The Minister's argument does not stand up. If he wished, he could increase the level of representation. There is nothing to stop him doing so——

That is right.

——other than some fixation on setting the level at three and not moving from that. I am extremely disappointed at the way the Minister of State and the Minister have responded to the debate on this legislation. When the Bill was published there was a general welcome for it and all Members were willing to co-operate in its passage through the House. It was made clear that there was a number of modest improvements which the Opposition parties as well as local authority members were seeking. Deputations from the local authorities went to see the Minister with a brief list of minor items which would have an impact on the delivery of services. There was nothing that would involve a huge cost or have a major impact on the way the Government does its business. The deputation of local authority members asked that their representation on the health board be increased. However, on virtually everything the Government has been asked to do, it has declined. That is a very bad way to start out on the road to the new local authorities.

Speeches on devolving functions to local authorities do not mean anything when a request from the local authority to increase its representation on the health boards is being turned down. I ask the Minister to think again on this matter.

Deputy Gilmore has expressed our disappointment. The Ministerial response to this amendment is indicative of the Government's treatment of the Opposition. The spirit of co-operation appeared to be evidence on Second Stage and again on Committee Stage when our concerns and objections were voiced not only on our own behalf but also on behalf of those deputations from the local authorities who have been to see the Minister.

It would have been an indication of the Minister's generosity to accede to relatively small amendments such as this on Report Stage. It is small in the context of the overall legislation but it is most important in terms of the representation of the consumer of health services in the Eastern Health Board area. I do not think it is a defence to state that if he increases representation for public representatives he will have to increase the medical representation. That does not have to be the case. As the Minister knows, there is no ratio of particular significance between the public representation and the medical representation on the health boards. There is absolutely no reason that the ratio of public representatives to the population they represent should not be safeguarded. That is all we are asking for. We are asking for the minimum number of local representatives necessary to safeguard real representative democracy on the Eastern Health Board so that the councillor on the health board can represent the views of people of the area from which he is elected. If there is any spirit of generosity the way the Bill is being taken I ask the Minister to concede to this amendment.

It is important to do so not only because of the intrinsic importance of the amendment but as an indication of the Minister's generosity. Some of the major issues are debated without a hope of having them accepted but amendments like this should be accepted without any quibble. In fact, it should have been done on Committee Stage. If the Minister cannot give on the small issues which are important to the delivery of the service, what is the chance that he will listen to the Opposition points on larger issues?

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 22 cannot be moved because it has been negatived by amendment No. 21.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Acting Chairman

We now come to amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 24 is an alternative and amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related. It is proposed, subject to agreement, that they be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 19, line 12, to delete "borough" and substitute "Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County".

This is a very important amendment. Members of the local authority concerned, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council, made a request to the Minister to amend a number of items in the Bill. The Minister graciously received an all-party deputation from the council and during their visit they identified half a dozen items that they wished him to amend in the Bill. In particular, they asked him to amend this section and I will now explain why they sought this.

At present there are two different regimes in relation to school attendance and school meals applying in the area covered by the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. In the former borough corporation area the children attending certain primary schools get school meals. In addition, their school attendance is governed by school attendance Acts and the council appoints school attendance officers, subject to the approval of the Minister for Education. In the county area school attendance is governed by the gardaí who effectively are school attendance officers. When the report on reorganisation was submitted to the Minister, the members of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council asked specifically that the same arrangements with regard to school meals and school attendance should apply right across the new county and that different regimes should not apply in the borough corporation area and the former county council area. It is very difficult to explain to a parent that school meals are provided on one side of the road but not on the other and that different school attendance regimes apply in different schools. We expected the Bill to reflect that when published, but it did not.

The Minister proposes to continue the old arrangement in the borough area and that is causing problems. The public are asking why these old boundaries are being kept in force for the functions of a new county council. It is causing a problem for the service because the councils specifically asked that the same rules should apply across the new county. As I explained on Committee Stage, we have moved from the idea of having a borough and a county. We have a unique project in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council in that we have to marry two local authority areas, the old borough corporation and the county council. Much work has been done on that by the manager, staff and members of the council, we are adamant we should operate as a single county and that there should not be a borough and a county. If that concept is kept it will sink the project. I explained this at considerable length on Committee Stage when debating the amendments on section 11. Deputies Doyle, Keogh and I spoke about this repeatedly on Second and Committee Stages and again this morning. I expected that by now we would have had a ministerial amendment acceding to our request. I am disappointed that is not the case and that the Minister for the Environment, who made such a big deal about this legislation and who was present for two days right through the Committee Stage debate where he would have picked up the nuances and emphases we were putting on the various points, is not here to respond. I know he had to attend an important meeting abroad on the day after the Committee Stage debate, but I would like to know if he gave any consideration to what we said on Committee Stage. Did we waste two days proposing amendments which the Minister has simply forgotten about? Will the Minister now accept my amendment? If not I intend to press it.

As the House will have gathered from Deputy Gilmore's contribution, the members of the proposed new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council feel very strongly about this. I gave a commitment to the Minister on this Bill but I intend to press my three amendments and to support Deputy Gilmore's amendment. We have argued for about an hour and a half about the identity of the new county council and how we want to leave the borough council behind. The Minister will have heard us talk fondly about our farewell do the other night for the borough council.

(Wexford): The Deputy did not invite us.

The Minister will not be invited to any of them unless he behaves himself here.

We bade farewell to the borough council. If we have what will amount to discrimination in the services provided to the people there will be total confusion among the people of the new county council area. We are trying to make a new start. We have enough problems about the financing of the new county council and we are carrying a huge debt with us. The Minister should at least give us the opportunity to start off with the operations of the county council being on the same footing.

Deputy Doyle did not totally support the amendment put down by Deputy Gilmore initially in relation to the services being provided only in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council and that is why I tabled an amendment to the effect that:

"(2) Each new council shall become and be a school attendance area for the purposes of the School Attendance Acts, 1926 to 1967, and there shall accordingly be a school attendance committee for each area.".

I do not want to discriminate between the county councils we are setting up but the same services should be available to our children right across the country. Obviously the Minister for the Environment did not listen to my arguments but I reiterate it is inconceivable that, for instance, one area of Sallynoggin should have a school attendance officer and school meals available and that another should not. I made that point about the value of the school attendance committees and school attendance officers very forcefully on Second and Committee Stages. It should apply right across the country and it is something which I will also put to the Minister for Education. Will the Minister for the Environment liaise with the Minister for Education so that we could have what amounts to a school welfare officer? Deputy Gilmore and I could point the Minister to the areas that desperately require these services. We are talking about disadvantaged areas where children desperately need support services. In this Bill we are saying that in one small part of our area facilities will be available but not in another. I am not willing to explain this to my constituents or to take the blame for something about which I feel so strongly. It is unworthy of the Minister for the Environment to totally ignore all our arguments. When we co-operate with the broad thrust of the Bill it is ridiculous that specific amendments are ignored.

Deputy Gilmore and I were part of the delegation which went to the Minister on the specific difficulties which the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area committee had with the Bill. We were well received by him, he made pleasant noises, smiled and nodded but gave us nothing. There may be a small concession on finance but we are starting with a huge debt. We are not getting consideration on relatively minor matters which would not cost a penny but which would give the councils, in particular the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council, the kind of autonomy they should have.

I gather that Deputy Doyle, who spoke strongly about the school attendance committees, will support this amendment. I am putting the Minister on notice that unless he gives a positive response to these amendments I intend to press each of them.

I support the well articulated amendment and the case put by Deputies Gilmore and Keogh. They are speaking from an intimate knowledge of the functional area concerned. There is little point in perpetuating the concept of a borough if the point of this legislation is to dissolve a borough, a borough council and Dublin County Council and to replace them with three new county council administrative areas. I will ask the Minister to take on board the good sense of the case already made here and treat all county council areas similarly?

In terms of school attendance and school meals, all the children in the greater Dublin area should be treated equally. There should not be a border between Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and south Dublin in relation to the services given to children. I intend to support these amendments but my real concern is that all the children in the greater Dublin area should be treated equally.

With the announcement of the increase in planning application fees this morning, there will be some latitude in terms of the rate struck this year and in funding the extension of the service. There will be a means of funding the service if it is extended to all children in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area and the other county council areas.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.32 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share