We come to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Barrett. Amendment No. 2 is related. I suggest we take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Local Government Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, lines 18 to 20, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) Where it is proposed to make orders and regulations under this Act a draft of the orders and regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the orders and regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
In all the amendments I have tabled, I have endeavoured to ensure that as much power as possible is devolved to local authorities and the Minister is removed, as far as possible, from dealing with matters that can well be dealt with by local authorities themselves; and where the Minister does retain minimal powers to make orders and regulations, that such orders and regulations will be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas for confirmation. Far too much legislation is passed in this House where the Minister retains power to make regulations by placing an order before the House which can be annulled within 21 days. In reality Members on the Opposition benches never get an opportunity to debate such regulations or orders, and that is not healthy. What I am proposing should be in all legislation, but particularly in legislation relating to local government. There has been much talk both on the Government and Opposition benches about the need to devolve power to the local authorities. I fully support that concept. Which will allow local representatives to be more answerable to the people that elect them. I do not see a role for central Government in local government except in exceptional circumstances. If that concept were accepted by the Minister and the Government, the number of orders we would have to deal with in this House would be very small. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is tabled.
I support Deputy Barrett's amendment. I have a somewhat similar amendment on section 18 seeking that the regulations it is proposed to make be subject to the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Increasingly we are seeing in this House a tendency towards using primary legislation simply as a means of enabling the Minister, in whatever Department, to make and issue regulations as absolute writ. This practice has been adopted quite widely by the present Minister. During the week he made an announcement at a press conference, where most announcements are made these days, about extensive new planning regulations. I happen to agree with many of the planning regulations the Minister announced. However, it is wrong that, effectively, the Minister should be allowed to announce regulations at press conferences without their being subject to examination here. Under the planning regulations the provision permitting up to four bedrooms in a house to be used for bed and breakfast purposes should have been teased out here or in special committee. In principle, it is regrettable that the Minister is taking this course.
I do not wish to anticipate the debate on section 18, but I want to draw attention to what Deputy Barrett's amendment would address. Section 18 allows the Minister to change the boundaries of towns and, in subsection (2), to change the boundaries of counties. Subsection (2) states that where the extension of a town boundary overlaps a county boundary, effectively the Minister can change the county boundary. That should not be permitted without debate in this House. I support Deputy Barrett's amendment which proposes to require all orders and regulations to be brought before the House. I have tabled a separate amendment.
Will the Minister inform the House the orders he is giving himself power to make under this section without their having to be confirmed by this House? There is a myriad of orders in this Bill, some of which require resolution by the House and others which can be annulled by the House if a resolution is put down by another Member, which presents its own difficulties.
I do not have the powers which Deputy Gilmore attributes to me. As the Deputy is well aware, the only circumstance in which those powers are exercised is when there is agreement at local level. In regard to the planning regulations, he more than anybody — because he was a front bench spokesman during the debate on the planning Bill — knows that I made a number of statements in this House about my desire to consolidate the planning regulations and to take account of the various opinions expressed in regard to transparency. I took advice from all sides and I am glad the Deputy welcomes generally all those provisions.
Most of them.
Amendments such as that tabled by Deputy Barrett are put down regularly and I am sure most Members are aware of the position. If we accept these amendments and the Bill is passed by both Houses, what will be the result? Both the Dáil and the Seanad are likely to have before them next week orders to implement provisions of the Act. A few days later each House will have before it regulations to give effect to the town boundary alterations and then an order to fix the polling date for the June elections. This amendment would require in every instance the approval of both Houses to a draft of the order or the regulations concerned. It would only then be possible for the order or regulations to be made by the Minister. One obvious effect would be that the making of the necessary orders and regulations would be so protracted and time consuming that elections could not be held in June this year, given the statutory time limits for notice of poll, nominations and so on, which apply in the lead-in to local elections. Such a lead-in process requires that the relevant provisions of this Bill are implemented immediately on enactment if the elections are to take place in June. That is required by law. On foot of this amendment, similar procedures would apply in the case of the implementation of all other provisions of this Bill as they are brought into operation on a phased basis. In every case the matter would have to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas and I am sure Deputy Barrett and others realise the sheer impossibility of such an arrangement.
All regulations under this Bill must be laid before both Houses and are subject to annulment by resolution of either House. In a number of specific cases, regulations must be approved in draft by resolutions of each House before they can be made. There is no question, therefore, of a carte blanche in the use of regulatory powers. Provision for the making of regulations is common throughout the local government code. The regulatory provisions in the Bill follow well established precedent. We cannot simply dispense with subordinate legislation and deal with every minute detail in this House. Last year more than 400 statutory instruments were made. The Oireachtas could not function and would be swamped if it were to become involved with a legislative volume of such a scale.
The question of regulations and the procedures to apply to them has been debated at considerable length in this House, most recently during the passage of the Local Government (Dublin) Bill. During the debate on that Bill I listened carefully to the points made by Opposition speakers and they heard me explain why it is necessary to include provisions for regulations. I still hold the view that the position in regard to this Bill is not any different. Regulations with the usual annulment procedure are a necessary part of the legislative framework and will remain so.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. This is 1994 and the last local elections were held in June 1991. At that stage the Government, of which the Minister was a member, decided that the town elections would be postponed pending reorganisation of local government at that level. It was not the fault of an Opposition party or Deputy that this did not happen. Three years later we have legislation before us which proposes to set up a commission to do work that was supposed to have been done in the past three years. The Opposition did not hold up this legislation. This is 26 April. The Bill was introduced and passed Second Stage in the Dáil last week and we are asked to pass all remaining Stages of it this week. It is unacceptable for the Minister to say that we would delay the holding of elections in June and that we are the bad guys in seeking this reasonable control of Government regulations. As long as Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann allow this to continue Ministers will have an easy way out. When they want to get a difficult decision through they can produce legislation stating they will retain power to make orders and regulations and, in effect, the Dáil or Seanad do not have a say. The procedure of laying an order before both Houses and allowing 21 days to annul it is a joke because neither the Dáil nor the Seanad gets an opportunity to do so due to time constraints.
In regard to holding the local elections in June, if the Minister wishes to introduce the orders next week we will cooperate in debating them. I am sure both issues to which he referred would pass through both Houses in approximately half an hour. It is the principle behind the amendment I support.
I wish to refer to the points made by Deputy Molloy. The regulations governing the conduct of local elections must be confirmed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. An order specifying a local election year must be confirmed by resolution of both Houses. The list of orders is extensive and I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily by reading them out. Those are the types of orders about which we are talking.
I support the arguments made by Deputy Barrett about the delay in introducing this Bill. The Minister's argument that debating the proposed regulations will delay elections and cause disruption is an example of the disparaging way central Government has treated the local government system for the past 20 years or more. Local elections have been postponed to give the Government an opportunity to put forward reform proposals. It is not good enough that the Minister delayed until now the introduction of this Bill dealing with local elections to be held in early June. This is a last minute rush to put the regulations in place. There is no genuine excuse for this delay apart from political reasons. It is disturbing that so many central Government politics are coming into play in determining our local government system. There has been a huge reluctance by parties in Government to bring about meaningful change in the local government system. When other parties were in office boundaries were changed in March or April before the elections in June of that year. Criticism of that attitude must be aired because the local government system does not have the power to alter its functions to give it the role in the community desired by the people. They want a meaningful and effective Authority which can respond to their needs but they cannot create one because they can only operate under legislation sponsored by the Government. The sad history of local government highlights that changes have been made reluctantly and at the last moment by an attempt to take political advantage through delaying the process so that there can be no proper debate because the legislation has to be rushed through and regulations implemented.
I support Deputy Barrett's points. If we are to have a proper local government system there must be transparency in changes and the House must have an opportunity to approve them. The power vested in the Minister has not been used for the purpose of advancing the local government system. We are generations behind the development of local government in Europe, but that does not concern central Government. The introduction of this half-baked Bill is a sop, no major change has been made. During the years there has been a huge reluctance to make meaningful changes. Following the Barrington report one hoped a more enlightened approach might have emerged at Government level, but its main recommendations have been watered down and there has been a delay in introducing legislation to implement them. There is no excuse for the time wasted by the Department of the Environment in preparing legislation for the reform of the local government system in its structures and functions on a proper statutory basis for funding that is seen to be fair and equitable, which is not the case at present. A great number of regulations can be implemented under this Bill by the Minister without due regard to the House except through the complicated system of the 20 day's annulment procedure. That procedure is not practical as Opposition Members cannot control the Order of Business or decide when these matters can be raised; they are limited to short periods and the Government largely determines the business of the House. It is wrong to give such a degree of control to the Minister, through these regulations, in this easy fashion. When making regulations he should be required to put them before the House for approval.
I did not intend to make a second contribution on this amendment but the Minister's response to Deputy Barrett would provoke even the most patient Member to comment on his sheer hard neck in introducing overdue legislation at the eleventh hour, and to argue that by questioning or seeking to amend it there was a danger the Opposition would delay the elections. The elections to be held in June should have been held four years ago in 1990. At that time the composition of the Government was different. In 1990 the Minister's predecessor — now an EC Commissioner — postponed the elections that should have been held that year until 1991 on the grounds that he would reform local government. In 1991 he told us he had completed only half the job, that elections could only be held for county and city councils and that the fundamental root and branch reform of town councils would take place after 1991. He even went as far as to say that the legislation on town councils would be introduced in February 1992. Those elections will now be held four years later and the promised legislation was not introduced. At the beginning of 1993 the Minister announced the Government was setting up a committee to reorganise district councils, town councils and so on with a view to them being reorganised in time for the elections in 1994. However, nothing was done until the beginning of this year when the Minister issued a circular to county managers asking them to submit new town boundaries by the end of March so that elections could proceed in June this year. Those elections are proceeding on a purely electoral basis. The town boundaries have been changed — or proposed to be changed — but only for electoral purposes. The administration, refuse collection, provision of water and other services will not be provided by the councils to which people in the suburbs will elect councillors in June. The Minister must take the prize for cheek — having presided over the postponement of elections for four years — then introducing a Bill which postpones county council elections for a further two years or more and saying that the Opposition, by questioning his approach, will delay the elections. If the Minister does not introduce the legislation the Opposition has called for until the eleventh hour he cannot complain if it questions and seeks to amend it.
Ní raibh sé i gceist agam labhairt ar an leasú seo. However, I detect from the pace of the proceedings that we will probably not reach all the amendments, if that is not a gross understatement. In that event the amendment proposed by Deputy Barrett is a stopgap to prevent the Minister acquiring further powers than those already vested in him. Many of the later amendments contain provisions which will substantially clip his wings. It is necessary to put in place a safety net to enable the House to reflect a more democratic opinion than the Minister's order. I support Deputy Barrett's amendment as a stop-gap in that regard.
It is important to bear in mind, despite the Minister's statements in support of this legislation, that what is possible under our legislation is not possible under local government legislation in other countries. We may postpone elections and basically decide according to political criteria when an election is to be held or postponed. I would argue that the Minister would have postponed the European elections if he could have done so. He is retaining power in terms of other elections and that is not acceptable. It makes this country the joker in the pack as elections may be decided on political and other considerations that ought not come into play in a democracy. It is not acceptable to talk about local government reform on the one hand and to set up special arrangements to postpone elections on the other. This amendment should be carried to safeguard against excessive ministerial orders.
A great many issues have been raised which are perhaps more appropriate to a Second Stage debate but I will quickly deal with some of them. Part of the reason for deferring local elections to 1998 is to ensure that candidates who are successful in the local elections in June will not be required to seek election in two years' time, to give them a reasonable mandate to bring all local elections into line. I am deleting the section under which the Minister will retain power to defer local elections. Deputy Molloy, who served as Minister with responsibility for local government for a longer period than many people, knows the constraints in this area. There are up to 70 sections in this Bill and it is outrageous to say that all of these developed last January. A long process of examination and discussion preceded this comprehensive legislation which received great support from a number of Members of this House——
Very few Members support it.
It received particular support from the General Council of County Councils——
The Minister must have received a different letter from the one we received.
—— the municipal authorities, the National Libraries Association and a number of other groups. There is a time constraint involved. We are rushing to enfranchise town residents who have been disenfranchised for the greater part of this century. I am very appreciative of the support and contribution of local authorities in making that possible. It is untrue to say I am using the excuse that there is need to facilitate an election on 9 June to introduce these powers. They have been a necessary part of legislation for time immemorial. It is not true that we can simply dispense with subordinate legislation and deal with very minute detail that comes into the House. I said there was 400 instruments last year, and the whole system would be cluttered up if all of them were to be debated. It is not administratively possible to provide for the inclusion of all these matters in primary legislation. I know of no country in the world where it is done.
The more I see of this Bill and the longer I listen to the Minister the more I think that the Bill was introduced to save face. The last Government, who did not have such a big majority, promised a total reform of the second tier of local government, but that legislation was not introduced. As a result local elections were postponed and people have been serving on local councils for ten years. I know of no democracy where people have served for such a long period. The only people who served longer than the present incumbents of town commissions, urban district councils and a number of borough councils such as Sligo Corporation are the members of the national parliament of Chiang Kai-Shek who crossed from mainland China to Taiwan. As many Deputies who were recently in Taiwan will know, those people are still members of the parliament there.
A perfect example of where an opportunity was lost is in boundary revision, and Sligo town is a good example. The members of Sligo Corporation had to hold a marathon midnight meeting, such as that held in Brussels when a solution could not be found, and the result was a compromise. We all know compromises are the worst of all worlds. Unfortunately, a great opportunity for total reform of the second tier of local government was lost. Why should a country area not have a second tier of government? There is nothing in the Bill to deal with this matter.
On the revision of boundaries, more than 70 local authorities were involved, more than 50 of whom, including Sligo, agreed boundary changes. Agreement was not reached in some areas, but that does not mean that boundary changes are not needed.
Local democracy.
That is not the way to proceed. Sometimes conflicts of interest arise between a county area and a town area for economic and financial reasons. When people failed to make a decision on boundary changes the Minister decided to leave those areas as they were. He is admitting that changes are needed but is saying he will not make the changes. That is no way to introduce local government reform. The Minister did many good things, including the introduction of the recent Roads Bill, and I know he has a deep interest in this matter, but on this occasion his hand was forced and he lost a great opportunity to reform local government. It is unlikely we will have another opportunity to do so for a long time.
The Minister referred to the extension of the life of county councils to 1998 so that all local authorities at county level and sub-county level, which he calls town authorities, will hold their elections on the same date from 1998 onwards. There is no statutory obligation to provide that local authorities at every level hold their elections on the same date. It is not good that all elections be held on the same date and I do not believe the Government, whoever is in power, would welcome the holding of all elections on the one date as a barometer test of how national Government is performing. In many countries that is not the case. The elections are staggered.
There is no justification for the proposal contained in a later section of the Bill to extend the life of the county councils and the county boroughs by two years when the elections that were held were for a period of five years. Already the Minister is interfering with the life of those councils and proposing in this Bill that they be extended. It is ludicrous for him to be introducing a provision which will take away his power to postpone elections in the future. If the Minister thinks that I or anybody on this side of the House believes that, he must think we are very native people.
One simply has to examine the record of previous Governments and Ministers for the Environment in regard to local government to see the gross way in which they have interfered with the local government system through the postponement of elections in most cases for political reasons, in order to avoid having an election in a year where the Government of the day thought it might not do well. This was done irrespective of the views of the community or of the other parties in this House. If the Minister believes he is convincing us that all that will end now, he is expecting us to believe too much. The only way in which he could so convince us if there was some constitutional requirement prohibiting the Government from interfering in the local government system in this way and that there was an obligation on the State to hold the elections within a fixed period, say, the five year period which has been the case up to now. Until something of that nature is put in place, either by adopting the European charter or some constitutional change to give constitutional rights to local government, the political parties in power will continue to distort the whole local government system to their own advantage.
We will never have a meaningful system of local government while that position obtains. This section is critical to the way Government has been abusing the local government system by making regulations. The least that should be required is that in future any such regulations would require the stamp of approval of Leinster House and that they must be put before the House for formal approval as is proposed in the amendment.
Obviously the Minister does not intend to agree to this amendment, and that is regrettable. It confirms our suspicion that the Government has no intention of devolving power to local authorities. We have the most centralised system of Government here. The Minister, by his own admission, says that if we were to accept this amendment where each order or regulation would have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, we would greatly delay many aspects of the legislation. That highlights the fact that this so-called reforming legislation continues to have the dead hand of central Government stamped all over it.
If the Minister and central Government were devolving real power to local authorities, there would be no necessity to have many orders or regulations laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas for confirmation because they would not exist. There is a fundamental principle here and it is a question of whether one believes that local government should stand on its own two feet, that the Government of the day should realise that the public elect people to local authorities that the public should decide whether those people are doing their job and should indicate their satisfaction or otherwise at the following election. One either agrees with that principle or disagrees with it.
This Government wants to retain as much control centrally as possible. In view of the vast number of amendments before us, it is a pointless exercise to delay the legislation any longer. This is an issue worth voting on because it will highlight which side of the argument one is on, whether one is for or against devolving powers to local government or retaining control at central level. That is the issue and there is little point trying to put forward excuses about delays and so on. This is a typical example of the Government bringing in so-called reforming local government legislation on which the Opposition have two or three days to deal with all Stages simply because the introduction of the legislation was left until the last moment. I ask for the question to be put and for the House to vote on the issue.
I wish to quote Mr. Barrington on this issue.
Do not mention him. The Minister ignored Barrington.
The Minister should not be making excuses now that it suits him.
Mr. Barrington stated: "This legislation should set out the broad local government framework and allow for necessary consequential changes to be implemented by way of statutory order".
He is talking about something different entirely.
Mr. Barrington continued: "This would provide the legal flexibility and adaptability to proceed quickly on an ongoing basis". Deputy Nealon raised the question——
Can the Minister give the page reference?
I do not have the exact page number——
We must have the reference.
——but I will give it to Deputies before I conclude.
We must have it now.
This is á la carte stuff.
On a point of order, if a Member quotes from a document, the Member must give the reference for that quote, otherwise it cannot go on the record.
I will give the Deputy the reference. Deputy Nealon referred to the fact that there were 89 towns in all in which local elections will be held. Only 62 of those have a population outside their boundary and of those, 57 have agreed. With the exception of one, the remainder agreed at local level not to have extensions and there was disagreement in only one case. I make that point because I am anxious that so far as possible decisions such as this are taken at local level and I am grateful for the cooperation that was afforded in most cases in reaching those decisions.
May we have the reference please, Minister?
It is at page 55 of the report.
I do not have my copy of the Barrington report with me but I recall its contents very clearly and while the Minister may have read the quotation accurately into the record, he has seriously misrepresented what Barrington was proposing. In the totality of his report, Barrington proposed very fundamental changes in local government. He proposed a process of change which did not include the postponement of elections and which would certainly have allowed for the making of regulations. What he had in mind was putting in place a framework, in the form of primary legislation, for reform of local government followed by the process of regulations. What we are getting in the Minister's Bill is the tired old traditional way in which regulations are used by central Government, namely, to exercise a type of supervisory role and a control over local government.
If we take the example I quoted earlier in relation to local government boundaries, Barrington proposed that there should be a boundaries commission, that boundaries would not be drawn in the way the Minister is proposing but by way of regulation. That is completely different. When introducing this legislation the Minister described it as the finest reforming legislation in local government in the history of the State.
Introducing the Bill, the Minister described it as the finest piece of reforming legislation in the history of the State. It is nothing of the kind. It is poor legislation and an excuse to postpone elections. It is a way to put structural reform at local government level back on the shelf. We have the pathetic sight of the Minister being caught out time and again, looking for some paragraph of the Barrington report, which he quotes out of context, to support his poor legislation.
Paragraph 11.4 of the Barrington report states:
The various changes recommended to widen the remit of local government (e.g. a general competence power; such legislative provisions as may be necessary to allow for devolution to proceed in a simple and flexible manner; removal of outdated control; move to a general discretionary grant system etc.) should be included in the first piece of reform legislation to ensure local government has the freedom to adapt and develop to its expanding role. This legislation should set out the broad local government framework and allow for necessary consequential changes to be implemented by way of statutory order. This would provide the legal flexibility and adaptability to proceed quickly on an ongoing basis.
If the Minister is justifying his rejection of the amendment on that paragraph he is doing a great disservice to those who served on the commission. Barrington supports every argument we put today and the principle that central Government should take its hands off local government, expand the powers of local authorities and give them flexibility and independence.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The postponement of local elections shows the contempt in which local democracy is held. Local elections should be held at a specified time. Local democracy is floundering and being on a county council is just about as useless a piece of work as one could find. They have very little money. There is not even sufficient to fill in potholes. They have no power. Everything is dictated by the Government. Over 90 per cent of what we do at county council level is controlled by the Government. I do not know what purpose local democracy serves. It is a pity the Bill does not deal with that aspect and allow local authorities the necessary finance and power to deal with local problems.
It is hypocritical of Members to condemn the deferment of local elections. Every party, including the Progressive Democrats, were involved in 1990 in the postponement of local elections. It is not something new.
That is not the case.
Local elections have been postponed——
I opposed their postponement in 1990.
——on 16 different occasions by all major parties.
The Minister should not say everyone agreed to it. That is not true.
Some of us are learning but the Minister does not learn at all.
The Deputy should not pretend that he has got it all right. He quoted from the Barrington report. The compliance powers have been granted and outdated legislation has been removed. The Deputy read out a paragraph outlining the steps I have taken.
They have not been taken.
They have.
How many sections of the 1991 Act which was passed three years ago have not been implemented by the Minister?
I do not have the details.
The Minister should have them implemented — it is fundamental legislation.
Since that time, powers in regard to housing have been extended enormously. The Deputy is familiar with the range of functions over which local authorities have absolute control and which do not need ministerial consent. I have devolved more control to local authorities on speed limits, parking and park management.
The Minister is taking away power from the local authorities.
I extended the role of local authorities in any legislation I introduced. There were 37 different functions which, prior to my appointment as Minister, required ministerial consent and I removed them.
Why not accept this amendment?
I intend to continue that process. All the provisions of the 1991 Act and this Bill will be implemented as quickly as possible.
It ill behoves the Minister to accuse Opposition Members of hypocrisy in regard to this matter. I reject the allegation he made. To state that my party participated in an exercise to postpone local elections for the same purpose for which the Minister's party wanted to postpone them adheres neither to the truth nor the facts. For the Minister to quote the Barrington report selectively does a serious disservice to the local government system. Is it any wonder that political parties are begging people to stand for election to local authorities? The Minister should not tell me they are not doing so.
We are not begging them.
Yes, Fianna Fáil is doing so.
The Minister should not cod himself but should wake up to the real world.
Members of the Minister's party are saying to me how difficult it is to find people who are interested in standing for election at this level. They see local government as a charade and has no real function. They know the Government has no intention of strengthening the role of local representatives in the community or giving them any meaningful function which would enable them to respond to the needs of the locality.
Mr. Barrington proposed an implementation commission be set up. He knew from his extensive knowledge of the public service and the political system that unless there was an independent group — he even suggested that there be a judge on it to ensure its independence — to oversee the implementation of the proposals there was little chance that they would be implemented. He did not trust the political parties and primarily the party of which the Minister is a member. Fianna Fáil has proved a major obstacle to the implementation of any kind of decent local government reform which would give local authorities a role in the community. People are crying out for that and the Minister is denying them that reform for political reasons.
Mr. Barrington stated that legislation should set out the broad local government framework based on the proposals in the report. This Bill does not do that. It bears no resemblance to any of the main recommendations contained in the report regarding sub-county level. The Barrington report stated:
At the sub-county level, the Committee have put two possible options forward for consideration — either a directly elected district tier of authorities or the formal establishment of district committees of the county councils;
under both options the existing sub-county authorities would cease to exist and be replaced by new arrangements. The logic of this situation, is that if either option is to be pursued, local elections should not be held in June to the existing sub-county authorities.
It was on the basis that some kind of radical reform of the system was about to be made that my party, in Government, agreed to the postponement of the local elections. We left Government without getting agreement on this issue from the Minister. The measure brought forward by the Minister, surprisingly with the agreement of the Labour Party, bears no relationship whatsoever to the radical options put forward by the Barrington Commission. He is proposing a minor alteration, extending the boundaries of some towns to include the bit of suburbanisation on the periphery. The Minister is opposed to extending local government outside the town system. He has not even extended the local government system to those towns which have a population far in excess of many of the towns included under the 1891 Act. This debate on reform is a charade and it is disgraceful that it is taking place within the national Parliament.
When the Minister's predecessor came into the House in May 1990 to postpone the local elections from 1990 to 1991 my party opposed the proposal. I again opposed the postponement of the town council elections in 1991 to, as it now happens, 1994. I have repeatedly called at Question Time, on the Order of Business and on other occasions for the holding of elections when they are due. During the debate on the 1991 Act I tabled an amendment which proposed that the local elections should be held at five yearly intervals and no facility given to Ministers to postpone those elections. That remains my view. The people who voted in the last county council elections in 1991 had a right to expect that the people they were electing would serve for a period of five years and not eight years, which they will serve under the Minister's proposal.
My second point relates to regulations, which is what we are really debating in the context of this amendment. I was not entirely happy with certain parts of its provisions, but I concede that by and large the 1991 Act was good legislation. The problem is that the Minister has muzzled the 1991 Act which effectively enabled local authorities, if they were allowed to do it, to re-organise much local government. Part VI of the Act allowed for the establishment of committees and the involvement of community groups, sporting clubs and the wider community in the running of local services. For example, a local authority might decide that its parks should be governed by a committee in which sports clubs and the users of parks would be involved. Yet three years later the Minister has not made the regulations or the order commencing the sections of the 1991 Act which would have allowed local authorities to introduce those reforms.
The Minister not only wants to have additional powers and regulations which will enable him to have a say in the affairs of local authorities but he will not exercise his existing powers. He has had three years within which to allow local authorities to proceed with the 1991 Act, yet he has not done so. Instead of saying he does not know the sections of the 1991 Act which have not yet been commenced, the Minister should tell us not only the sections but why they have not been commenced. We are entitled to an explanation after three years.
I cannot let go unchallenged the Minister's sweeping statement that Members on this side of the House are seeking to postpone elections. It was very ungracious of the Minister to make such a statement and he knows full well that it is not true. He sought to qualify his remarks by stating that the larger Opposition parties collaborated in perpetrating this injustice. This merely serves to reinforce my original suspicion that not only is the Minister adopting a dismissive attitude to local government through the retention of power at central Government level but he is also adopting a dismissive attitude to those people who vote for smaller parties. This is an insult to people who vote for smaller parties, including the Green Party. This type of attitude is not becoming and the Minister should clarify the position.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Calley, Ivor.
- Costello, Joe.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McDaid, James.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó'Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, John.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
Question, "That the words paroposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, lines 21 to 26, to delete subsection (2).
Is this amendment being withdrawn?
No, I want it put but I do not think it will be accepted.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Molloy. I observe that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are alternatives to amendment No. 3, and amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive are related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments 3 to 9, inclusive, together if that is satisfactory. If amendment No. 3 is negatived, amendments Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be moved.
On a point of order, can amendment No. 8 be moved?
Yes.
On a point of order, amendment No. 5 in my name deals with a different matter from that dealt with in amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 deal with Members of the Oireachtas and amendment No. 5 is about ministerial advisers, programme managers and flunkies of one kind or another.
They are addressed in the same lines in the Bill. The Deputy will have an opportunity of commenting on them.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, subsection (1), lines 32 to 38, to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) and substitute the following:
"(d) is a member of either House of the Oireachtas, or".
It is difficult to debate a local government Bill when it contains what the Minister proposes and not the type of reform the other parties would wish. The changes proposed go nowhere near what my party would wish. The Bill is only tipping the hat at the Barrington ideas and does not go anywhere near what was proposed. In an effort to improve local government I tabled this amendment which refers to the dual mandate. I am putting forward the principle that local government should be able to deliver a wide a range of services to the people and should have an adequate statutory basis for its funding. There should be a clear dividing line between the role of local authorities and that of central Government. Unfortunately, central Government continues to control a wide range of functions. If we were to apply the principle of subsidiarity it would not be administered by central Government but at local level.
In order to achieve our objective of strengthening local government I propose that the functions of councils be increased and that the Minister's authority be strengthened through legislation. There is a conflict where the dual mandate is maintained. I have exercised it. There is no point in the Minister telling the House that Deputy Molloy has been a member of a corporation, a county council——
I would not have bothered.
—— and the Dáil and that there is no validity in my arguments. I have made other transitions in my life, much more fundamental than this and I hope the Minister recognises that. I am prepared to take a stand on issues that I regard as important. I do not want my credibility in this regard qustioned in this manner. We could have Deputy McCormack rushing in to remind the House that I was once appointed a member of a sheep dipping committee. Perhaps the sheep dipping committees did valuable work, I do not know as I never attended such a meeting.
Deputy Molloy never dipped a sheep in his life.
I never dipped a sheep although I owned pigs, cows, bullocks etc.
For a number of years.
In order that local government be capable of delivering services in the community I am advocating that a Member of the House should not be authorised to stand for election to a local authority. I realise that if a member of a local authority is elected to the Dáil he or she can hold the dual mandate until the subsequent election. A similar position obtains in the case of those elected to the European Parliament. If they are Members of this House they retain their seat until the subsequent general election. That is the position in my party and other parties are adopting the same approach. Generally, we would not support the dual mandate. This is very radical and is absolutely anathema to members of Fianna Fáil, of other parties and, perhaps, also to members of Fine Gael. I am pleased Deputy Barrett is supporting the same principle.
I do not expect the Minister's party to support the amendment. I despair of the Labour Party standing for anything in the line of reform because when its members get into office they are the poorest performers on delivering on their own policies although when in Opposition they made many fine speeches in the House. I do not expect the Minister will accept my amendment. It is not that I do not believe it is possible for Members to serve both bodies — it involves much jigging around of the scheduling of meetings of local authorities to facilitate those who are also Members of the Dáil or Seanad. That may not necessarily be a good thing. If we had the kind of local government that my party would like no Member of the House would be able to stand for election to a local authority.
When my party was in Government we advocated the barring of Ministers and Ministers of State from standing for election to local authorities. That was one of the few reforms we succeeded in having accepted. This amendment is an extension of that principle. I am putting it forward on the basis that local government would benefit from it. I fear for local government if the Minister does not deliver on the powers and functions we would like to see given to local authorities. The continuous postponement of major decision-making in this area has been a cause of much concern and leads one to despair as to whether anything worthwhile will emerge.
One would despair at local elections being postponed four years in a row, extending the tenure of elected representatives to nine years. It is absolutely extraordinary that this has happened. It quite clearly reflects the attitude of certain members of the Government to local government. For that reason I am sure they will not want to support an amendment of this kind.
My amendment would benefit greatly the local government system. Oireachtas Members are inclined to dominate the proceedings at local authority meetings. As members of the Oireachtas have the opportunity to represent the people of their area at national level, they are an inhibiting factor in local community involvement.
I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.
There is very little between the Opposition on this issue. The Fine Gael Party would prefer to see legislation giving effect to reform and reorganisation of local government and we will continue to press for it. My amendment No. 8 is slightly different from those of my Opposition colleagues. It states:
In page 11, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) (a) When local authorities have been conferred with real and substantial powers to perform their functions, the Minister may, by regulations, disqualify members of the Houses of the Oireachtas for being elected, for being co-opted, or for being a member of a local authority.
My amendment proposes also that where such a regulation is made it be confirmed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, in keeping with the principle we debated earlier. When we have effective local government, people can decide whether they wish to represent their constitutents at local or national level. When we arrive at that day the onus on local government representatives will be to represent people at local rather than national level so that membership of a local authority will not be used as a vehicle to dislodge an elected Member of the Oireachtas. Let us be frank and admit that members of local authorities use local government as a platform to be elected to this House. We all did it. If we are to have effective local government, local authority members must break their service before seeking election to this House. It is reasonable that there should be a quid pro quo from members of the Oireachtas. We will never deal with the issue until we face up to that situation.
My party fully supports the recommendations in the Barrington report to devolve powers to local government and when a Government has the courage to act on those recommendations it will be impossible to serve on a local authority as well as being a member of this House. The additional responsibilities imposed on local authority members would, in my opinion, make that impossible. When we face up to that task I believe a substantial number will want to serve on local authorities. Political parties, and Fianna Fáil is no different from us, would admit that it is proving difficult to find attractive candidates to serve in local government because they do not see it as meaningful. That is the truth, whether or not one wants to accept it. People believe the present system of local government representation means nothing and I agree with them.
The question of the dual mandate will arise when we have effective local government. Debarring Members of the Oireachtas from membership of local authorities would not make a great difference under the present arrangements. If we want to make effective local government an issue, my amendment deserves support.
A member of the European Parliament may be a member of a local authority. From my reading of the Bill, a member of the European Parliament can serve also as cathaoirleach or leas-chathaoirleach of a county council as there is no reference to this in the Bill. I have tabled an amendment that members of the European Parliament should not be eligible to serve as cathaoirleach or leas-chathaoirleach.
We should continue the struggle to seek the devolution of power to local authorities. When we have meaningful local government I believe it will be impossible for Members of the Oireachtas to serve at local government level. The Fine Gael Party holds this view and I fully support it.
My amendment is similar to Deputy Molloy's. The Minister will be aware if he has read the submission of the General Council of County Councils that county councils are crying out for this reform. It is regrettable that elections will be postponed until 1998 but some Deputies have intimated that they be further delayed until 1999 if we can do a deal. That may be just what is needed to allow intrepid Deputies who are county councillors get used to the idea of reform and that county councillors are equal in their own right. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, will remember my previous allusion to the work of the spectre of George Orwell, which looms over this aspect of the Bill where councillors are all equal but some are more equal than others. It is high time that we seize the opportunity presented by the postponement of local authority elections to put in place the necessary changes and allow each party to take stock.
It is important that we clarify a matter not clarified during the debate on the European Parliament Bill. When I tabled a similar amendment to prevent a member of the European Parliament from being a Member of Dáil Éireann I was informed in conversations with officials of the European Commission in Brussels that under European law we could not prevent anybody from holding a dual mandate. That matter should be clarified because the House has been misled. I cannot find the European legislation which states that we cannot end the dual mandate at European and national level.
We do not have to tip our caps to Europe. Our local authorities and national Parliament have been demeaned and diminished by this practive. According to the General Council of County Councils the dual mandate has had an adverse impact on local government, given that 60 per cent of the Members of Dáil Éireann are also members of a local authority.
Keep going.
Because it is usual in Irish politics for members of councils to be Members of Dáil Éireann and vice versa the people are confused about what a councillor and a Deputy are meant to be doing. Some assume that every Deputy is a councillor and vice versa. That is their perception and it does nothing to dispel cynicism about politicians. Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann are considered to be higher grade county councillors. As a consequence they have a wider brief than county councillors. The organisation of meetings at local level is controlled by the activities of the Oireachtas. In the same way the passage of legislation is impeded because committees which ought to meet every day of the week are encouraged by their members not to meet at the same time as local authorities. The local authorities and the national Parliament are diminished by this.
We are short-changing a large segment of the population, as pinpointed in the report of the Council for the Status of Women. This view is shared by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. He was anxious to ensure that political parties would accept the recommendations made in that report, which states that women are discriminated against in entering politics because there is an assumption that a councillor, to be effective, must also be a Deputy in order to pull the right strings and have influence. This matter has to be addressed. All the Members present are male. We have failed to introduce this necessary reform.
Provision must be made for a transition period to educate the public and politicians at national and local level. That matter can be addressed by way of amendment to this legislation. I understand from reports in the Irish Independent that initially the Minister was keen to end the dual mandate. I realise that something has happened behind closed doors but Deputies need not be afraid of what lies in store; they should bear in mind that we will not have local elections for some considerable time and that their parties would do far better if more women were encouraged to become involved in politics.
I did not resign my seat immediately. Provision was made for a transition period to train a new councillor who happened to be a woman.
There was a dispute about who should replace the Deputy.
There was not. Interested members of the Green Party in the area took part in a selection process. The people in a Balbriggan and north Dublin are represented much more effectively because members are not allowed to hold a dual mandate. It is time we met the wishes of the people and reflected on the submission of the General Council of County Councils. We should be brave and not hide behind closed doors for personal and political reasons.
I have tabled an amendment to this section which deals with those employed in the office of a Minister or Minister of State, that is, a handler, an adviser or a manager. These will be prevented from being members of a local authority. I have not tabled an amendment to prevent a Member of the Oireachtas from being a member of a local authority because I do not believe there should be such an exclusion. If I did believe that Members of the Oireachtas should not be members of a local authority I would follow this to its conclusion and either resign my seat on the local authority or in the House.
I have been listening to the debate on the dual mandate both inside and outside the House in the context of membership of a local authority and the Oireachtas. This is a political red herring. Local government needs fundamental reform. I believe that strongly and I have spoken about it repeatedly. Central Government, the national Legislature and the Department of the Environment should devolve much more of their power to local government. In Denmark about two thirds of the functions of Government are performed at local level and I would like to see us moving in that direction. Indeed, the logic of our membership of the European Union will force us in that direction because, increasingly, at one level decision-making is in the European Union and its institutions and at another level it is in towns, counties and cities. The problem here is that we have not devolved enough powers to local government.
The central and most urgent question that needs to be debated in the context of local government is its funding. Within the past few weeks the Taoiseach said he would reintroduce rates. However, within the week the Minister for the Environment dissociated himself from that statement. We need to know how local government will be funded because the biggest problem is not that Dáil Deputies sit on the council but that it does not have the money to provide the services demanded by the people. For example, there are 30,000 people on local authority housing waiting lists; thousands of houses in substandard condition, some without bathrooms or indoor toilets; and roads that one would not put a horse and cart on, much less a motor vehicle. In urban areas there is a lack of community facilities. These are the real issues of local government — people demand services, that the roads be fixed, footpaths repaired, good housing conditions, clean water and a proper environment. Last week's report from Greenpeace listed thousands of breaches of European and environmental regulations in Cork. However, what is raised here as the central issue, as the big problem of local government, is that members of local authorities are also Dáil Deputies or Senators. That is daft. The reason for this being raised is that every so often a phrase arises that becomes a political touchstone which nobody can oppose; it is a dose of political correctness, the sexy issue, the page three pin-up of local government. That issue is the question of the dual mandate, and the Minister was the first to recognise it. In bringing a Bill before the House to postpone local elections and put reforms on the shelf — the most undemocratic thing he could do to local government — the Minister or his public relations people needed to figure out how to get a headline on the issue. They certainly did not want a headline on the postponement for another two years of the county council elections, or to the effect that having waited four years for reform at district council level they had not done anything about it other than to redraw the electoral boundaries. They had to produce something for a headline and they dug out the old chestnut of the dual mandate. The Minister is in with the stick saying that Dáil Deputies cannot be chairmen of the county councils, etc. In most of the reportage of the debate on the Local Government Bill, limited as it was, that was the main issue addressed.
The principal reason the issue should be addressed is the way politics is practised at a practical level, with multi-seat constituencies and the local, and often personal, relationship that exists between public representatives and their constituents which is a good thing; far too often social welfare, health and environment regulations and so on are written in offices by people who never see those affected by them. I am in favour of a good deal of contact between public representatives and the people they represent.
In addition to that dimension of politics, referred to by Deputy Barrett, there is a more fundamental question, whether local government will be better if there are no Dáil Deputies or Senators on the councils. There is separation of powers here, including the separation of judicial. Executive and legislative powers. At local government level there is the separation of the reserved functions and the Executive functions. Now there is to be another dogma, the boxing off of local government from national Government. That is not desirable because what happens at local level works its way through to national level. It may be very neat from the point of view of somebody drawing a chart of what constitutes government to be able to separate them so that never the twain shall meet. However, the two do meet on issues like housing where the funding for its provision and the rules regarding the construction of private housing come from central Government. Building regulations also relate to what happens at local level. If a community wants funds for the development of a community facility it is not just a local issue. The national lottery which is controlled at central level is involved.
There was a debate last week about whether there should be a community school or a community college in a particular part of the country. It is not practical to separate the local from the national, nor is it desirable. There is a relationship between the two which should, on occasion, be reflected in common membership of the national parliament and of local government. They are not separated in other countries. In France and the United States, for example, the people who often end up running for presidency and senior government positions are mayors of cities, not necessarily members of the Legislature. That is the way their local government is structured.
They do not say mayors.
That is true, but they have a different arrangement. There is no evidence of a public demand for the separation of local and national Government. Very often it is the reverse. One only has to look at electoral returns — I do not know of any better way of testing it — to see that members of local authorities are elected to the Oireachtas and vice versa. The question of deciding who should be a member of a local authority should be left to the electorate. If we are to introduce reform in this area, it should be to consider having some memberships of local authorities on a full-time basis, particularly in some of the larger local authorities. It is very difficult now, if one is a member, a part-time member, of, for example, Cork Corporation or Dublin Corporation, to keep in touch with what is happening.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wedneday, 27 April 1994.