Local Government Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 13:
In page 13, subsection (4), line 42, after "vacancy." to insert the following:
"The person to fill the casual vacancy shall be a member of the party of the previous office holder. In the case of the previous office holder being an independent candidate the vacancy shall be filled by the person with the highest number of votes in the electoral area of the previous office holder.".
—(Deputy Barrett.)
Deputies have contributed extensively to the debate and I hope that will continue. As regards the matter under discussion, a number of solutions have been put forward. We have Deputy Barrett's amendment and Deputy Molloy's suggestion that there be a by-election. The customary position is that, where there is agreement between all parties, the vacated seat is filled by the party who originally won the seat in the election. I indicated I would consider the matter but I have not arrived at a satisfactory solution. One problem arises where a candidate changes from one party to another. I am dealing with electoral law in the electoral Bill which will be brought forward soon. It is ready to go before the Government and will be enacted later this year. I intend to have a serious look at the electoral code.
There is a lot of sense in the proposal but it is not possible to accommodate it here in the available timescale. It has wide implications for other aspects of the Bill. The matter needs to be teased out further. I will undertake a general review of the electoral code not only in relation to local elections but parliamentary elections as far as by-elections are concerned.
I hoped the Minister would say he would do something on Report Stage. We have a ready made alternative in that the Euro elections are a model for the filling of a vacancy. In the European context there is a separate list but it would cause confusion if it were used in a local election. I understand there may be difficulties. If we agree with the general principle of filling a vacancy occasioned by the death or resignation of a local authority member, it should not be beyond our capabilities to find the correct wording. If the Minister is giving a commitment, I will accept his word. Perhaps he might deal with it in the Seanad and bring the Bill back to this House. It would be better to do something in this legislation rather than in the proposed electoral Bill because this legislation will bring forward somewhat the reform of local government.
I do not want to push an amendment that will be defeated and forgotten about. I would prefer if it were on the record that the Minister accepts the principle and that the matter will be dealt with in a positive way in the electoral Bill. I would prefer if the Minister gave an undertaking to deal with the matter between now and Report Stage or during the debate in the Seanad. Any amendment agreed by the Seanad could be agreed by this House in a matter of minutes.
This has proved to be a more stubborn problem than originally thought. I have no difficulty in accepting the general principle of the Deputy's amendment but one would want to be sure of the solutions before one went all the way down that road. I cannot go any further at this stage. The matter is too complicated to solve in the time available here. I will examine the matter in the context of the electoral Bill and consider the implications for Parliamentary elections.
Did the Minister indicate when the next electoral Bill will be brought forward?
It is almost ready for presentation to the Government and will certainly be enacted this year for effect in 1995.
I am pleased to hear that. The Minister has given a fairly satisfactory response to the points we have made about filling vacancies. I hope the electoral Bill will extend voting rights to Irish citizens residing abroad. The Minister must be very embarrassed that South Africa in its first democratic elections has been able to extend voting rights to its citizens in other countries. Approximately 500 South African citizens in Ireland have this right. To their shame, successive Irish Governments have neglected our citizens in other countries. I hope the South African election will jolt the Government out of its complacency and it will finally extend the right to vote to the many Irish citizens living in other countries.
I have been proved to be one of the most reforming Ministers for the Environment——
The Minister should let others judge his record on the basis of results.
——and I intend to continue this approach.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendments Nos. 14, 26 and 129 form a composite proposal, amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 22 and 25 form an alternative composite proposal and amendment No. 24 is a further alternative. It is proposed, therefore, to take amendments Nos. 14-17, inclusive, 22, 24-26, inclusive, and 129 together. If amendment No. 14 is negatived, amendments Nos. 15, 26 and 129 cannot be moved. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Why are you grouping amendments Nos. 14, 26 and 129 together, yet for debating purposes you are grouping amendments Nos. 14-17, inclusive, together?
I understood all Deputies received a copy of these proposals.
I will see that the Deputy is given a copy immediately.
The proposals on the list are not as comprehensive as that read out by you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
You mentioned two groupings, amendments Nos. 14, 26 and 129 and amendments Nos. 14-17, inclusive.
I did so on the basis that amendments Nos. 14, 28 and 129 form a composite proposal, amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 22 and 25 form an alternative composite proposal and amendment No. 24 is a further alternative.
I understand. I move amendment No. 14:
In page 14, lines 40 and 41, and in page 15, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) The term of office of the members of every local authority elected at the elections referred to in subsection (1) shall, in respect of each town mentioned in columns (1) to (3) of the Sixth Schedule, terminate in the year specified in the heading of the relevant column of that Schedule. Elections of members of local authorities shall then be held every five years after the year in which each term of office terminates.".
The Minister proposes to extend the life of the county councils elected in 1991 by two years to 1998 so that all local authority elections will be held on the same date 1998 onwards. I have put forward an alternative proposal in the belief that there is no necessity to hold all local authority elections on the same date and it might be preferable to hold them on alternative dates. My amendment proposes that the various sub-county authorities, the town authorities, as the Minister prefers to call them, need not necessarily hold their elections on the same date.
This practice operates in other countries and should prove attractive to parties in Government. If all local authority elections are held on the same date they could become a test of the Government's performance in office, thus introducing a new element into the elections, distracting the electorate from local issues to national issues, introducing a national importance into the local elections instead of focussing on the role of the local authority and its performance in the community. Somebody suggested — perhaps it was the Minister — that it would be right and proper to hold all local authority elections on the same date. It sounds like a Civil Service tidying-up arrangement.
I oppose the postponement of the 1996 county council elections until 1998 merely to facilitate this suggestion. It is undemocratic to suggest that a council elected in good faith by the electorate for a period of five years should have its life extended for another two years by the Government at the stroke of a pen. This displays a certain disdain for the local government system. One cannot help coming to the conclusion that it is considered to be unimportant, things are done by central Government, it is not intended to devolve any meaningful role to local authorities, it is a bit of a nuisance holding elections to these bodies and it would be much handier to hold all the elections on the same date.
I do not see the logic behind the Minister's proposal, which cannot possibly have anything to do with expense. I do not perceive any great difficulty in holding elections to some local authorities in one year and to others in another year. It would overcome the concept that they must all be held on the one day. That is the real thinking behind my amendment. I will be opposing the extension to 1998 and giving the reason. I am introducing a new element in this amendment, that local authority elections in different areas should not have to be held on the same day. That is the practice in many other places where it works very satisfactorily.
Tacáim ar go leor bealaí leis an méid atá ráite ag an Teachta Molloy. Tá suim faoi leith ag an bpobal sna toghcháin a bheidh ar siúl ar 9 Meitheamh mar gur cuireadh na toghcháin sin siar cheanna féin. Ba i 1985 a bhí na toghchúin deireanacha do na coimisinéirí bhaile agus do na húdaráis eile ar an leibhéal céanna. Tá praiseach á dhéanamh againn arís den scéal ag cur siar na dtoghchán áitiúla arís go dtí 1998. Nuair a thiocfaidh 1998 tá go leor daoine ag rá go gcuirfear siar arís iad go dtí 1999. Níl ach bliain eatarthu agus beidh na comhairleoiri sásta fanacht in oifig agus beidh an Rialtas sásta ligean dóibh.
Is cumhacht é seo nach ceart a bheith ag an Aire Comhshaoil ar chor ar bith. Is cinnte nach féidir na toghcháin Eorpacha a chur siar nó a athrú. Tá an dlí ann agus caithfidh gach duine idir Airí agus phobal é a leanúint. Dá mbeadh deis ag an Aire na toghcháin Eorpacha a chur siar bheadh siad curtha siar, ach ní féidir. Measaim go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach ó thaobh an chreidiúnais atá i measc an phobail maidir le cúrsaí polaitíochta de ligean do na toghcháin dul ar aghaidh i 1996 mar atá leaghtha síos sna tréimhsí cúig bliana atá ann agus gan a bheith ag cur isteach air sin, mar ní chabhraíonn sé leis an íomhá i measc an phobail ó thaobh cúrsaí polaitíochta de.
Tá mé buíoch den Teachta Sargent as ucht na creidiúna a thugann sé don Rialtas. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil sé sásta go mbeidh an Rialtas ceanna i gceannas agus i gcumhacht i 1998.
By opposing section 21, which provides for the holding of elections to all local authorities in 1998, Deputy Molloy would negative his amendment to provide for a new rota system for town elections because the latter relate to section 21. He may wish to withdraw that amendment.
We will deal with that when we reach it.
There appear to be all sorts of conflicting views as to when the next elections to all local authorities should be held. None of the amendments is acceptable. Deputy Molloy wants local elections to be held in four out of every five years and at county level in 1996, by virtue of the proposed deletion of section 21, and town elections divided between 1998, 1999 and 2000.
I am well aware that there are different systems in other countries. I am not sure they have any advantage over ours. I could foresee some disadvantages. Although Deputy Molloy would appear to think there would be no diseconomies or overheads involved in holding elections more frequently, even if their overall number is not increased, I would have my doubts. For instance, there would be more frequent chopping and changing within and between other bodies to which local authorities make appointments such as health boards, harbour boards, vocational education committees, regional authorities and local authority associations, to name but a few. I could not contemplate such change without widespread prior consultation.
Holding different local authority elections in different years probably would reduce the overall national focus on them and would not be conducive to enhancing their status or general public awareness of local authorities. Deputy Molloy's amendment would also put back the next elections to some town commissions for six years. I am not sure there is any demand for that type of change.
Deputy Sargent wants elections to all local authorities to be held in 1996. This conflicts with his amendment No. 24 which proposes to repeal the relevant section. This proposal is unacceptable because it would mean that, in order to bring town authorities back into line with the general cycle, members elected next June would have a term of two years only. I explained last evening why I considered that undesirable.
It is difficult to satisfy everybody in this case. I am proposing an amendent to drop the power to postpone local elections by order, the best way of resolving problems of this kind, so that we can hold elections every five years from 1998 onwards. I am satisfied that the provision of the Bill that elections to all local authorities will be held in 1998 constitutes the best balance of all the relevant factors. I will be adhering to this provision. The various amendments to sections 15 and 21 and the consequential amendments to sections 15, 16 and 17 proposed by Deputy Sargent accordingly are rejected.
Labróidh mé i mBéarla an uair seo mar is mian liom a bheith anchruinn maidir leis an méid a dúirt mé. Ba iad na coimisinéirí agus na húdaráis eile ar an leibhéal sin a bhi í gceist agam nuair a bhí mé ag caint faoi 1996.
The Minister appears to think I was referring to the Government when I mentioned the number of amendments calling for the election year to be 1996, not 1998. I presume the Minister can enlist collective Government support in rejecting this amendment. I consider that to be a retrograde step as it further reduces the credibility he claims he is endeavouring to restore to local government and politics in general.
The Minister made an extraordinary assertion, claiming that he was not aware there was any public demand to extend the life of any of these local authorities to six years.
I did, but that was not the area to which I had been referring.
If the Minister would care to explain himself somewhat better we might then understand him.
Deputy Molloy expressed the desirability of holding local elections at different times in certain areas over five or six years. I merely said I felt there was no public pressure or support for that type of change from the current practice of holding all local elections in tandem. I am anxious to preserve that practice and to be fair to those candidates who go forward on this occasion for election in all urban areas.
I heard the Minister correctly. There was no public pressure to extend the term of those local authorities elected in 1985 from 1990 to 1991, from 1991 to 1992, from 1992 to 1993 or from 1993 to 1994, which is what has been done. I do not understand how the Minister feels there must be public pressure to justify something being done. All sorts of actions are being taken in regard to local government about which the public are not consulted at all. What I am objecting to is the notion that local authorities elected in 1991, whose term would expire in 1996, will have that term extended to 1998 without any public pressure. If that is the type of base line the Minister uses when determining whether to introduce legislation, there is no justification whatever for his proposal to extend them to 1998. It is a retrograde step and all the comments I heard outside were critical of the Government's decision. There is no regard for the democratic decision of the people when they were asked to make a choice for five years. Their views were ignored, central Government treated local government as a play thing and felt it could postpone local elections indefinitely.
The Government, with its majority can introduce legislation to make these things happen but it is not doing the local government system any favours. Instead it is undermining the people's faith and trust in that system. That has to be the constant theme of my party's contributions to this debate. We want the Government to accept that local government is important and that the people want it to play a meaningful role in society, which it has been continuously denied by the actions of Government parties. We have a classical example here in that the Minister is proposing that elections be postponed not for one year but for two years on the spurious argument that all the elections should be held on the same date. Who laid down the edict that it was necessary to have all the elections on the same date? There is no statutory requirement that they must be held on the same date, it has just been the practice.
If we are trying to improve, reorganise and reform the local government system with the intention of strengthening it, we are going about it in the wrong way. I am critical of the Minister's move in this regard as it is unnecessary.
The argument the Minister is using for the holding of elections on the same date is a spurious one. There is no constitutional obligation on him to do so and there is no bar on his accepting an amendment of this kind. My amendment, which proposes dividing up councils and having elections on different dates is an indication of how it can be done. It can be changed; elections do not have to be held every three years. Alternatively, the matter can be left alone if the Minister tells the House that he is prepared to drop the extension of the term of office of county councils from 1996 to 1998. I will withdraw this amendment if the new town authorities which commence in 1994 will serve a five year term followed by elections. Those elections do not have to coincide with elections to county councils.
It is undemocratic of the Minister to think that because of the Government's majority it can deny other parties the right to contest and increase their strength in local elections. The Minister is seeking to cement his numbers in local authorities by denying people their right, under current legislation, to pass a judgment on these councillors after their five year period in office in 1996. In effect it is an interference with democracy, the jackboot is being used by parties who have a large majority in this House. It is an abuse of Government power and it has to be exposed. The Minister can put forward the spurious argument that all elections should be held on the same date. There is no public pressure for not holding them on the same date. Those who are aware of what the Minister is doing are not happy.
The Fianna Fáil Party lost seats in the last local elections and, perhaps, they fear that should an election be held in 1996 they would lose even more of their strength. In order to avoid that the Minister is proposing the postponement of those elections. The Minister is aware that our party contested the local elections for the first time in 1991 with a certain degree of success. Obviously, the Progressive Democrats look forward to contesting the next county council elections with the objective of increasing its membership. It will not have a chance to do that because Fianna Fáil, in cahoots with Labour, will deny the people the opportunity to vote in 1996 and in 1997. This is a disgrace.
I do not agree with the suggestion that local elections should be brought in line with the European elections. It is time the public was asked to concentrate on local government issues separate from European issues. In an attempt to build up that second tier of Government, in terms of a proper local government system with proper powers devolved to it, it is right that people should be asked on a particular day to give their opinion as to who is best to serve them at local level. For that reason I do not accept the argument that local elections should be held in conjunction with the European elections as the issues would not be debated properly. It is demoting local government to a position it does not deserve and it takes away from the seriousness of the European elections. Nobody appreciates democracy until they are without it.
People in other parts of the world fought long and hard for democracy. Irish people should be permitted to express their views through the ballot box on local government, national government and European affairs. For convenience sake we should not have too many elections on the same day; that is not the purpose of the exercise. If that happens the real issues are not debated. One election would be placed against the other with the result that one would have to take second place. For that reason I do not accept the argument that local elections should be held on the same day as the European elections.
I agree 100 per cent with Deputy Barrett on that issue. It is unfortunate that on this occasion the local elections which were deferred in 1991 are coinciding with the European elections. I would hope that that would not be repeated in the future. Deputy Molloy's references ring hollow considering that he was in Government in 1991 when the local elections were deferred.
I was not in the Government of 1991 when the local elections were deferred indefinitely. What is happening now is immensely different from those decisions which Deputy Molloy was a party to. I am happy to terminate that power and have introduced an amendment to delete section 25 in order to remove the power to defer local elections. I have indicated that I am anxious to hold all local elections on the same day as this will give them national significance and encourage greater public participation. I am trying to consolidate matters and in the circumstances I propose that candidates standing for election to urban authorities should serve a two year term of office.
We can change over time but Deputy Molloy knows that his attitude to the liquidation of urban authorities is different from mine. We have tried to find the best possible balance. It is not ideal to defer elections but it is a good thing to hold local elections on the same day, if possible. We will achieve that in 1998 and the candidates who present themselves will have a reasonable mandate in the forthcoming June elections. Earlier we considered how difficult it is to persuade people to stand for public office. It is a difficult arena that is becoming even more difficult and it would be almost impossible if those who are putting themselves forward were asked to seek re-election in two years' time.
There is no ulterior motive to deprive people of the franchise. In fact, I have extended the franchise, in a way no previous Minister ever did by extending the boundaries in towns. Other provisions in the Bill demonstrates I am anxious that people participate. I am taking the ultimate step in ensuring that the matter will be rectified by deleting a provision that gives the Minister of the day power to defer local elections. In its letter, the General Council of County Councils intimated that the elections be held in 1999. I want to remove the possibility of that happening and to be certain that local elections will not again be held in tandem with Euro elections. Each local election will have its own special significance and there is no question of deferring them further.
I do not know why the Minister refers to the fact that I was in Government when the local elections were postponed in 1991 unless it is intended to illustrate that the arguments I make are a contradiction of what I did in practice. Last night I went out of my way to describe clearly what happened in 1991. The Progressive Democrats Party were a minor partner in that Government but the Barrington Committee was established at our urging as part of the Programme for Government. Even though our partners were reluctant to reform local government the commitment had to be fulfilled as part of the Programme for Government. The Barrington report states on page 54:
(d) 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 council; 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. These should be continued in existence until such time as the necessary reorganisation legislation has been prepared and enacted.
On the basis that the Government intended to bring forward major legislation on the sub-county authorities it was agreed to postpone elections but not for the county and county boroughs, which did in fact, take place. Unfortunately, the reason given for postponing urban elections was never fulfilled because the reorganisation legislation was not brought forward in a form that resembled the overall proposal from the Barrington Committee.
This Bill is of minor significance as it merely extends the boundaries of some towns while completely ignoring the main thrust of the Barrington report that local government at sub-county level be extended to the whole population, not just to the 15 per cent who live in towns. The Minister should recognise the legitimacy of the argument and the expectation that major reform would take place, although it was never fulfilled, possibly because the Progressive Democrats Party did not remain in Government and the reluctant partners did not introduce a Bill. This partnership Government laboured and produced what they call a major reforming Bill but, by any stretch of the imagination, it could not be deemed that. The Minister has held office since 1992 and I do not see his point in arguing about previous extensions. We are trying to introduce legislation that will lay down statutory requirements for the future. It is wrong and anti-democratic to seek to deny the people the opportunity to vote in county and county borough elections in 1996 as is their entitlement under the law which the Minister proposes to change. It cannot be justified on any grounds and the Minister has not justified it in his explanations to the House. He has not referred to the principle of the point I am making. I have shown that it would be possible to hold elections on different dates and there is no necessity to hold them all on the same date but he has not attempted to answer this point. The Minister appears determined to hold all local elections on the same day but that is an excuse to extend the mandate of existing councillors for two years, which is wrong.
The Minister argued that only two years will elapse before commissioners and urban district councillors seek re-election to office. The point seems to have been lost that the cause is the postponement of local elections. Two wrongs do not make a right. We have already gone through the mill of procrastination and deferral. The results are to be seen in towns fortunate to have town representatives. In Balbriggan, some members of the urban council have died, others have resigned and it is good to rejuvenate urban district councils and town commissions to bring them into line with the year 1996 as proposed in the amendment. That would give us two years to rejuvenate the town commissioners by giving them sufficient powers. We also need to allow other towns to elect councils. For instance, Skerries, which is of similar size, Malahide and Swords, which have populations of 25,000 or more, are bemused that Balbriggan, which has a population of 8,000, has town commissioners. That does not make sense.
I look forward to the town council in Balbriggan being upgraded before June 1995. The councils in many other towns also need to be upgraded and steps are being taken along those lines.
When the Government of which Deputy Molloy was a member fell it was replaced by a Government of a different complexion. The Deputy realises that dialogue takes place. I am not anxious to defend the decision to postpone the elections. I was merely highlighting the fact that the Deputy was a member of the Government which made the decision. Nine years is too long and the signs are visible. It takes a considerable period to prepare local government reforms and it is well known that their preparation was interrupted.
We are back on an even keel and all local elections will be held simultaneously in the future. They will not be held in tandem with national or European elections. The power of the Minister to defer the elections is being terminated. Deputies should try to be more generous and understand the problems which led to the deferment of the elections. I would not like to see this repeated.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 15, subsection (3), line 12, to delete "1998" and substitute "1996".
Question put: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand".
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 16, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), two or more local authorities may by agreement alter the boundary of any borough, urban district or town having town commissioners. In the case of disagreement between any such local authorities, the dispute shall be resolved by Independent Commissioners appointed by Dáil Éireann.".
Deputy Molloy's amendment relates to boundary alterations generally on an ongoing basis for all local authorities. Section 18, which this amendment seeks to amend, is a once-off power to allow alterations for the purpose of the June elections arising from the boundary review carried out by county managers following consultations with the authorities concerned. Alterations made under section 18 must relate to the maps submitted by the managers which have been agreed locally. Section 18 is not an ongoing mechanism for boundary alteration but a once-off power. An amendment of this nature to deal with an ongoing position as regards boundaries is inappropriate for inclusion in this section.
The Local Government Act, 1991 contains provisions on the lines sought by this amendment, boundary proposals developed locally and referral to an independent review committee whose report must be published. The relevant provisions of Part V of that Act have not been implemented pending decision as to future sub-county structures. Once future arrangements affecting town local government are settled following the report by the reorganisation commission, under Part X of this Bill it is proposed to implement the boundary provisions of the 1991 Act. As this will meet the requirement sought by Deputy Molloy's amendment, I ask him to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 17, subsection (6), line 34, after "fix." to insert "The local authority will invite submissions from interested parties or members of the public for return within six weeks and will prepare its final submission with due regard to those submissions.".
As I explained earlier, section 18 provides for a once-off power to give effect to the town boundary alterations for the purposes of the June elections. Those boundaries have been agreed at local level and the changes must be effected immediately following the enactment of the Bill if town residents outside the current legal boundaries are to be entitled to vote in the June elections. The amendment appears to envisage the question of future boundary alterations and I have already dealt with that matter.
The Minister referred to a "once-off power". Is he saying the power will cease to be law after it is exercised? How will it come to an end? I am sure he realises the demographic change is always in the state of flux. Does he envisage that this will change or can he assure us that boudaries will not change in the future?
Boundaries will change in the future and the charges will be organised by the boundary commission which will be established as soon as possible. This power relates only to the present agreement and to the maps as submitted and agreed which are relevant for the June elections, but in future boundary alterations will be made by the boundary commission under the 1991 provision.
Is the Minister satisfied that the boundary commission will have sufficent consultation with the public and responsible bodies so as not to necessitate further change?
That is the way to proceed. It is important that the consultative process operates well. We had experience of this in the reorganisation of the three Dublin authorities which allowed us apply a similar mechanism. However, the matter needs to be refined. It was more urgent in this case and, fortunately, we reached agreement in respect of almost all the relevant towns. The consultative process adopted by the commission will be as open and transparent as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 19, before section 21, to insert the following new section:
"21. —(1) The Minister, shall, following the publication of each census of population, appoint a Local Boundary Authority.
(2) The members of the Authority shall be—
(a) a High Court Judge, who shall be chairperson,
(b) a nominee of the County and City Managers' Association,
(c) the Ombudsman,
(d) the Secretary of the Department of the Environment.
(3) The Authority shall decide on the number of members for each county council, county borough council, borough council, urban district council and town council.".
The amendment proposes the setting up of a boundary authority, following the publication of each census, to decide on the total number of members of every local authority. I am not prepared to accept such an amendment as there is not a real case for setting up such a elaborate mechanism.
While at first glance there might seem to be arguments in favour of the establishment of greater uniformity of numbers between authorities, this does not stand up to scrutiny. Each authority operates within its own administrative area and, so long as the council has sufficient members to carry out its functions effetively, there is no real reason there should be concern about whether it is treated more or less generously, from the point of view of representation, than its neighbours.
An attempt to base the number of members of a council on a national average population or some variation of such national average would result in unrealistic extremes of representation. Either some authorities would show a significant loss of representation or others would show inordinate increases to unmanageable sizes. To be able to function each council must have a certain minimum number and if membership goes above a particular level the council will become unwieldy and inefficient; all were agreed on the problems associated with the large size of the former Dublin County Council. Insistence on equality of representation across local authorities is not necessary, desirable or realistic. It might also be noted that there is not a constitutional or statutory requirement regarding equality in the councillor-population ratio as between local authorities.
There is, of course, statutory provision for the revision of electoral areas within local authorities. This can be used to ensure reasonable equality of representation between the electoral areas of the one authority. The law in this regard will be consolidated and is contained in section 26 of the Bill. Any such revision will involve a report by a statutory boundary committee under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1991.
I moved the amendment merely to hear the Minister's argument with which I agree. I do not support the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 was discussed with amendment No. 14.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 19, subsection (1) (a), line 35, to delete "1998" and substitute "1996".
In view of the decision on amendment No. 14 there is not much point in pressing this amendment. I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 19, subsection (1), lines 37 and 38, to delete paragraph (b).
I do not propose to accept this amendment. The provision here is a technical one which requires the application of Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1941 side by side with the other provisions of this section. The 1941 Act allows the Minister, where a local authority has been removed from office, to hold new elections to the authority. If this amendment was accepted it would create confusion. It would be unclear whether members of a local authority removed from office would have to remain out of office until the next ordinary elections which could be four years later, or whether the Minister could order the holding of new elections in the meantime.
The reference to the 1941 Act is included simply for clarification purposes. The provisions in Part IV of that Act are not used lightly. Over the past 50 years members of local authorities have been removed from office on only four occasions. I ask Deputy Barrett to accept my assurance as to the technical nature of his proposal and, accordingly, to withdraw his amendment.
I cannot grant the Minister's request simply because this amendment is tied in with later amendments relating to the Minister retaining power to remove members from a local authority for, say, not striking a rate satisfactory to the manager or the Minister. Nobody can abolish this Assembly. This is similar to an argument we debated earlier. Why should central Government have the power to abolish an elected body of people in 1994? This provision dates back to 1941, 53 years ago. We are living in different times. If people are elected to a body by the public they are expected to behave in a responsible fashion and if they do not the public will inform them either directly during their term of office or at the next election.
In time people will realise that local government stands on its own. I fail to understand why the Minister for the Environment approaching the 21st century, should have power to abolish an elected body of people. Similar rules should apply to local government as apply to this Assembly. For that reason there is no need to retain the powers sought by the Minister in section 21 (1) (b). Section 21 (1) (a) clearly states that an election of members of every local authority shall be held in the year 1998 and every fifth year thereafter. The public should be given an opportunity to vote, the elected representatives should be given responsibility to run the local authorities for a five year period and nobody should have the right to abolish them if they do not adhere to certain regulations. For example, three new local authorities, namely Fingal, Dún Loughaire-Rathdown and South County Dublin, were established on 1 January 1994 and the Minister said publicly he would abolish them if they did not impose service charges. That is an undemocratic approach. The elected members of those authorities and others should justify their actions to those who elect them. If they run out of money, cut services and impose taxation they should be answerable to the people, not to the county manager who can complain to the Department of the Environment that they will not agree the rate. The Minister can tell the elected members that if they do not change the estimate he will abolish the authority. In 1994 that is supposed to be democracy. A Minister should not be empowered to remove elected representatives.
In the 1980s when it was established that the Government had introduced a false set of Estimates in that the moneys voted were insufficient to run the country for the period involved the Clerk of the Dáil did not run to the President complaining that Deputies in Leinster House were not providing enough money in the Estimates for the following year and that it should be abolished. The Minister for Finance can get his colleagues in Government to vote through a budget or Estimates that may be insufficient. The Government can do as it likes. However, big brother may tell a local authority it will abolish it if it does not impose service charges. We are being asked to agree subsection 1 (b) so that the Minister can retain his power to put manners on people or call elections if he decides to abolish an authority because he does not approve of the manner in which it operates. Under that subsection governed by an Act dating back 53 years, he can decide to call an election if he does not agree with the manner in which it operated.
We should go the whole hog and ensure reform by holding local authority elections every five years and the elected representatives should be answerable to those who elected them. If the Minister is interested in reform — as he claimed during the past two days — he should say, with his hand on his heart that it is time to get rid of this poisoned chalice. The local authority should decide on the introduction of service charges, its level of expenditure and justify its existence to the public. He should not retain power to call elections because of a provision in the 1941 Act.
The wording of page 19 of the 1941 Act appears innocent but it uncovers not only a feature of democratic abuse, but an agenda which, unfortunately, will gather momentum. It is evident in problems faced by Fingal and other local authorities in County Dublin, if it is appropriate to refer to those authorities as being in County Dublin. If the Minister is empowered to abolish local authorities because they do not strike a rate of which he approves, how will the problem of local authority funding be resolved? The decision by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1977 to abolish domestic rates is now seen as a big mistake. Many see it as a device the Minister may use to force local authorities to carry out the dirty work while the Government, like Pontius Pilate, will wash its hands and say that the public should not complain as it is the local authorities who are fleecing them. I wonder if there is an understanding between local authorities and the Minister on this matter. I have heard members of local authorities say that if they did not impose service charges the Minister for the Environment would abolish the authorities. That is a wonderful example of passing the buck. I wonder how long it will take the public to see through that formula. Would it not be honest to involve more people in politics by abolishing the dual mandate and securing a greater turnover of members by not postponing elections. People would realise what is involved in running the country compared to a local authority. Perhaps Ministers could make a start by having a smaller car and cutting back on expenses, particularly on the number of trips abroad. Such measures would set an example of frugality in how we spend public money. I hope such measures will be the preferred course rather than the formula agreed between the Minister and the local authorities, where one blames the other for certain measures.
During the past 50 years 6,000 meetings of local authorities have been held at which they adhered to their responsibilities to pass the estimates and run the services. Of those 6,000 meetings this power was exercised on only four occasions. We should not exaggerate the massive dragon who is making decisions for all local authorities, encroaching on their fields and delivering the ultimate package, the message of abolition. We should put the matter in perspective. That decision is rare. It is difficult to calculate a precise percentage as the number is so minute. That matter is not relevant to this section but I mention it in case I do not have an opportunity later to reply to queries raised.
Since the abolition of rates local authorities have had to raise more money from own resources — this year they will raise more than £400 million. There are people in Dublin who blame the Minister for the Environment for the introduction of service charges, but the people of Kildare, Meath, Wicklow, Wexford and Kilkenny have had to pay a proportion of the cost of those services for a very long time. It is a pity public representatives sometimes hide behind the Minister, but I do not mind. If that is the way they want to serve in public life, escaping from reality, I cannot help them. The only circumstances in which the general provisions in this area will be applied will be where there is failure on the part of a council to pass an Estimate as submitted by the manager. Any suggestion that this provision will affect councils throughout the country is not true. In 50 years 6,000 Estimates have been passed and there was intervention on only four occasions.
The Minister has a fresh memory.
What the Minister has done is a typical example of using statistics to present a false picture. He did not quote the number of cases that were referred to previous Ministers for the Environment where subsequently local authorities succumbed to the pressure imposed on them. The Minister referred to four occasions where local authorities were put out of business. He is not denying the heavy hand of Government in this matter. He should accept the blame for service charges in Dublin. When I did not support service charges in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown it was suggested that I was all right because I had a seat in the Dáil, but the other members felt under pressure because they were going out of business. It was clear that if charges were not imposed the Minister would exercise the power which I maintain he should not have. As long as he retains that power councils will hide behind him because he is an easy scapegoat. If that power did not exist we would have to justify our existence to the public. We would have to justify whether we could run the local authority without charges or we would have to justify cuts in expenditure.
I will give an example of what is happening as a result of the Minister having this power. In the course of the estimates debate in Dún Laoghaire, which was very short, I queried expenditure on the running of swimming pools. There are three swimming pools under the control of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council which were built with public money. Two of them are run through voluntary community groups. The local authority provides £15,000 per annum to supplement the running of the pools. The third pool, which is closed on many occasions, in run directly by the local authority and costs the taxpayer £164,000 this year. The manager did not say he had proposals to reduce that amount to £15,000. Instead the estimate was referred to the Minister.
I am proposing that if a manager is unhappy about a matter and reports it to the Minister, the Minister's function should be solely to appoint an efficiency audit group to look at the estimates and report publicly within 14 days so that the public will see what is happening. The elected members could then make their decision. The Minister should not tell them to revoke their decision on a particular rate or that he will put them out of business. The members of the local authority must justify their course of action to the people who elected them.
A practice used by managers throughout the country relates to what are called "sweeteners". For example, the manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council provides £75,000 to the five electoral areas, with each area receiving £15,000 of public money to produce ideas and decide on items of expenditure. However, members are reminded that those who do not vote for the estimates will have no say in how the money is spent. We are talking about public money and running local government, but this is an absolute disgrace. I want a stop put to this practice. Elected representatives who are dealing with public money should behave responsibly and if they can save money, they should do so. They make difficult decisions on the imposition of taxation and they should stand over those decisions. They should not go running to the Custom House to blame the Minister, regardless of what party he belongs to. Local authority members should stand on their own feet and question the county manager on every pound of public expenditure. Vast sums of money that could be used for good productive purposes are being wasted simply because of inefficiency.
I tabled an amendment which proposes that each local authority should produce an annual statement with an audited statement of accounts, and that they appoint commercial auditors to carry out an audit each year. It is the minimum that should be done in the control of public expenditure. That is reforming local government. Once that happens there will be no need to run to the Minister about Estimates and so on and there will be no need for the Minister to have power to scrap locally elected bodies and replace them or perhaps hold new elections.
There should be a second tier of government that stands on its own feet and is answerable to the people. After five years the public will decide whether members are re-elected. People ask me and other members what we are doing with their money and why we are not doing something about waste and negligence. All of us, including the Ceann Comhairle in his long distinguished career as a public representative, have been asked what is going on. Where is the control? When elected members ask questions and have power to direct paid officials to do their job there will be real democracy and people will be answerable to the electorate.
The day the Minister gets rid of the power to scrap local authorities, appoint commissioners and hold new elections, there will be a sigh of relief in his Department. That would be in the interests of democracy. The Minister would be doing everybody a great favour if he had the courage to say enough is enough. This power may have been relevant 50 years ago but it is no longer relevant. There should be proper local government, with elected representatives behaving in a responsible fashion and answerable to the people.
For a couple of minutes I thought I was sitting over there listening to a new Minister to the Environment saying some of the things I have been saying about efficiency and having the best profile and practices so that we can guarantee the taxpayer a good service without excessive costs. With a view to achieving such a service I visited practically all local authorities and will conclude those visits before the end of summer. Included in those visits is the question of discussion on audits and the comparisons between what is happening in one area and another. I have already outlined publicly my annoyance at the variation between, for instance, expenditure on county roads from as little as £200 a mile to almost £2,000 a mile from own resources at local authority level. I have already expressed my opinion on the repeated filling of potholes and urged that structural work must be done, even though it will take longer.
Since 1 December we have had 39 inches of rain; the normal rainfall for a year is 50 inches. When the dry weather eventually comes the full day will have to be availed of, while there is light and dryness, to continue the work on many of the roads that are in a poor and unacceptable position. Changes at administrative and operational level are essential because the expenditure overall in this area will be approximately £160 million this year. In the past five years £600 million has been spent on the county and regional roads and enormous problems remain despite that large expenditure. Funding will increase over the next six years but it is important that we achieve better results as there are wide disparities between what is happening in one area and another.
I am delighted this issue has been addressed in an open and frank way without involving the politics of it or trying to pick out individuals. We have tried to contribute to ensuring that we achieve better results from the resources that have been provided. I regret there has been a long tradition among all parties in the House of simply requesting additional resources to solve a particular problem. We must see what can be done within existing resources in terms of finance, personnel and structures, to deal with these problems. That is not to say that our councils have massive resources, they are tight on many fronts and I accept that, but a number of points have been raised by Deputy Barrett in a forthright and honest way and if Members serving on local authorities tried to achieve that balance, we would find better solutions more quickly.
I mention county roads because there are major problems in many regions and in the cities in relation to these matters. When I visited County Monaghan, I was told that they have only had seven fine days this year to work on our roads. If the weather clears up, which I hope it will, finishing work at 3.30 or 4 p.m. will not be adequate to deal with these problems. I was delighted to hear that in one part of Dublin the operations began at 7 a.m., were deferred during school going hours and resumed again following that, which showed a level of flexibility and understanding of the needs of the public and the pressures of traffic. In Merrion Street last year work was carried out during off peak hours to achieve better results and efficiency. These are matters which must be dealt with at local level.
I welcome contributions from Deputies which go above the normal political style and which do not involve simply requesting additional funding. That will get us nowehere. I am determined to achieve efficiencies and I will support every measure in terms of better practices, audits and some other measures, which I have already outlined, involving bonus payments from my Department for operations which are skilfully, efficiently and comprehensively carried out and perhaps some consideration for the minus results also where such practices are not being adopted.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 20, subsection (2), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(h) the number of polling stations,".
I understand there is quite a divergence between the number of polling stations in different local authority areas. There may have been an oversight in omitting it from this regulation or it may be covered adequately in some other Act. The Minister may be able to clarify that when replying.
Section 23 gives power to make regulations concerning the conduct of elections. This includes regulations governing the nomination of candidates, deposits by candidates, deaths of candidates, the duties of returning officers, staff of returning officers, the taking of polls and counting of votes, the use, free of charge, of schools and public rooms, arrangements for postal voting, arrangements for special voting, voting by persons in the employment of returning officers, voting by physically ill or physically disabled electors, etc. The list is long and provisions in regard to the number of polling stations should be included if not covered adequately elsewhere.
In some ways I am surprised that Deputy Molloy is tabling this amendment because he advocates local autonomy and subsidiarity, with which I agree. Primarily this is a matter to be dealt with at local level because of the consultative process and the need to be familiar with the local situation. Differences will arise because of geography, demography and so on and I do not want to become involved in primary legislation on this matter. The Deputy will be aware that under the 1991 Act, there are regulations on which I am working which should help to achieve greater uniformity. I believe that is what Deputy Molloy has in mind. I should not decide matters which are best decided at local level.
I am aware there are complaints about the excessive number of polling stations in some areas. If the Minister is saying that decisions about the number of polling stations fall within the remit of local authorities I am pleased to hear it. The more functions that are devolved to local authorities the happier I am. Who determines the number of polling stations?
They are decided locally.
I will give that information to the Deputy later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 20, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following subsection:
"Notwithstanding the provisons of subsection (1) or of the Electoral Act, 1992, any person who reaches the age of eighteen years before the election date shall, not less than 12 days before an election, be entitled to have their name added to the supplement to the register of electors.".
This amendment would prove an administrative nightmare, if not an impossibility, for those charged with the preparation of the register of electors for local elections, quite apart from any question of principle involved and there are serious questions to be addressed in this regard.
The amendment proposes that the person who reaches the age of 18 years before the election date shall be entitled to have his or her name added to the register of electors through the supplement to the register which is provided for by section 15 of the Electoral Act, 1992. The supplement is a mechanism by which electors who were inadvertently omitted from the register may have their names restored during the currency of the register.
The essential requirement for inclusion the supplement is that the applicant must satisfy the requirement for inclusion in the original register, in other words, for the purpose of the supplement no account can be taken of subsequent occurrences, such as change in address or acquisition of citizenship. The supplement is designed solely to correct mistakes.
If the view were accepted that the person should be able to vote immediately on reaching 18 years the proper course would be to include the person on the register for that year with an indication that voting entitlement would commence from a particular date. This is the practice adopted in a number of countries, including the UK. If they are to have the right to vote they should be put on the register from the start and the right should not be dependent on making a special application.
The effect of the amendment would be that a person aged 16½ years would have to be included in a draft register and such voters would be specifically identified as young people. Their precise age and birthday would be published for all to see and could leave them open to all kinds of unsolicited and undesirable requests.
From the point of view of fairness and the protection of the integrity of the register, procedures identical to those applying to the ordinary register would have to be put in place — house to house inquiries, proper checking of eligibility, provision for public inspection of a draft list, right of audience at revision courts and, where appropriate, appeal to the Circuit Court. I do not see that this procedure could possibly be followed in the time available. I am not convinced that this approach should be adopted. We should weigh the matter up very carefully before going down that road.
The supplement is an innovation in the registration process and will face its first practical test at the elections in June. I ask Deputies to encourge constituents to examine the register and if they are omitted they should apply immediately to be eligible to vote at the forthcoming elections. This provision which I made in the Electoral Act, 1992, received all party support. We are all aware of cases where people were left off the register and it was decided to have a supplementary register. We should ensure it works well and consider whether further changes should be made in future.
Anyone omitted from the register — except an 18 year old — can exercise the right to be included on the supplementary register up to 12 days before the election. However, the determining date for an 18 year old is the date the register comes into operation. If an election were held in November or December an 18 year old person's name would not be included and they would be denied access to the new facility of the supplementary register.
The Minister mentioned it could be done in a more administratively efficient way as is the case in the UK. I wanted to debate the principle and ascertain the Minister's reaction to it. It is fair that people who reach the age of 18 by the date of the election should have the right to be included on the supplementary list.
In areas such as the Sligo Borough Council which have been expanded to a certain extent, will there be new registers or will the people operate on an amalgam of the old registers which were designed for the borough council and county council areas? The Sligo Borough Council may be unique as far as wards are concerned. I do not know if other areas have wards. If so, will they be retained? The fact that more people have been put into one ward rather than another has accentuated the discrepancies that existed as regards the number of people each councillor represents. I am sure it is desired to have uniformity in that regard.
Areas such as Drogheda, Dundalk and Bray have wards. The change in population over the years would necessitate change but the number of seats would remain the same. Sligo is one of the unique places where I understand the extensions agreed were in proportion to the existing wards and did not add sufficient population to knock the existing ward system out of kilter beyond taking the broader population into the ward to which it was closest. The register for that area will be a single register of voters. For Sligo, the boundary divisions are just a minor extension outwards to take in the new population with no change in the line from the old boundary inwards.
I understand that, because the boundary was first drawn in a circle around a particular area.
The Minister did not respond to my point. Does he see any validity in the argument that a person who is 18 years of age at the time of election is precluded from voting because he is excluded from the register and does not have access to the new facility of the supplementary register?
Not for the first time I lose, even though I am doing the right things. In 1992 I provided that those omitted from registers could be included on a supplementary register provided they registered within 12 days of polling day.
I have some sympathy with Deputy Molloy's proposal to extend the range of facilities, but further detailed consideration would have to be given to the way in which this proposal is implemented. He referred to the position of a person who reaches the age of 18 in April, where a subsequent election does not take place until November. Work on the register normally begins in September and is completed by the end of the year, with some court revisions in February. I am not sure about the numbers but if Deputy Molloy's proposal could be tidied away in that context it would be a better way to achieve the result he seeks.
This is a very complicated matter and it could be taken into consideration in future electoral law, the proper place to deal with such matters. I agree that we should continue the process of allowing a franchise to those groups in so far as that is humanly and administratively possible. However, it is not possible to do so in this context. I should like to see how the new system works before considering any future extensions.
On the basis that the electoral Bill will be introduced soon and the Minister's commitment to give further consideration to this matter, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 25 be deleted".
Due to time constraints, I will not elaborate further on my reasons for terminating the Minister's power to postpone elections. There is agreement on this proposal.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendment No. 32. Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 37 to 41, inclusive, are consequential. It is proposed, therefore, to take amendments Nos. 32 to 35, inclusive, and 37 to 41, inclusive, together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 23, subsection (1) (a), line 6, to delete "or urban district".
This amendment proposes that urban district council areas should be maintained as one electoral area and the Minister should not have the power to divide them up. Urban district councils have nine members and under this section as worded the Minister will have power to divide the nine seat electoral area into smaller parts. I am opposed to that and would like to hear the Minister's views on my amendment.
All urban district councils have nine members. It is envisaged that a number of town commissioners or urban district councils will be enhanced over the next few years — at least six authorities come to mind where the membership will be increased from nine to 12. There are differing views about wards. I have no intention of enshrining in legislation any provision under which the ward system could be introduced in nine member urban district council areas. There are differing views about the introduction of the ward system in larger areas — Deputy Nealon might want to refer to Sligo. Although I had an inclination to abolish the ward system, the strongly held views and traditions in some areas obviously changed my mind.
Deputies will appreciate that other factors have to be taken into account in larger urban areas, for example, the number of candidates in a 12 seat area and the problems associated with that, even down to the count. I should like to hear the views of my colleagues on this point. Power is provided in the Bill to accommodate local authorities which now have nine members but which will clearly have an enhanced new status following the commission's report.
That is not what section 26 says; it gives the Minister very wide powers to divide these electoral areas in whatever way he wishes. For example, the nine seat urban district councils could be divided into areas with three representatives each. Such a move would not be appropriate in the case of smaller towns which do not have a very large population and it could have implications in terms of the overall results of the elections in these areas. The Minister is shaking his head——
I did not say I would do that.
No, but he has the power to do it; the section seems to give the Minister the power to decide the number of members who will be elected and the size of the electoral areas.
The powers of the Minister in this area will depend on the recommendations of the independent commission.
I favour the retention of the ward system in an area the size of Sligo Borough Council. This system is very relevant to local government, which is what we are dealing with here. Who has the power to change the wards? The wards in Sligo were established more than two centuries ago and because the town has not grown in a uniform fashion these wards are incongruous to a certain extent.
If one was establishing three wards in Sligo one would not pick the present ones. Has the Minister the power to change wards or has any consideration been given to this matter?
The boundary commission will be established and certain of my powers relating to, for example, the submission of maps for boundary changes, will be automatically dissolved under this Bill. The boundary commission will take all factors into account and consult with the members of the councils and the community so as to ensure that the new ward system conforms with changes in population and any other developments in the town. If wards are to enhance local authorities they must reflect the changes which have taken place. This process will begin towards the end of this year or early next year. There is no urgency about it but the commission will undertake the work on an independent basis.
I cannot see anything in the section which provides that the Minister shall only exercise this power to implement the recommendations of a boundary commission. The position of Sligo Borough Council does not arise in the context of my amendment which proposes to exclude the urban district councils from the terms of this section. I accept that in the case of county boroughs or borough councils it would be necessary and suitable to have wards or different electoral divisions where the number being elected would be more than nine, it might well be as many as 12 or 15. My amendment seeks to exclude urban district councils which are electing nine members. Under this section the Minister is taking power to divide that electoral area into lesser parts and to determine the number of people to be elected. Can the Minister show me where he is constrained only to implement the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission, not referred to in this section, which gives him wide powers in this matter?
Subsection (1) makes it clear that orders under this section are subject to and without prejudice to Part V of the Local Government Act, 1991 which contains the provision governing the remit of the Boundaries Commission.
Does the Minister intend to increase from nine the number of members to be elected to urban district councils? Is that his intention or is that matter to be decided solely by the Boundaries Commission?
I was extremely anxious to ascertain whether I could do so, particularly in the case of those towns that have attained eligibility for borough status. I was unable to do so and the matter will fall to the remit of the Boundaries Commission. Taking everything into account and the new town councils to be established, especially in larger urban areas, that is the best way to proceed. there will be new councils with 12 members. Unfortunately it is not possible to deal with that before the forthcoming election.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 23, subsection (4), line 24, to delete "by order" and substitute "in consultation with the local authorities affected by a proposed amendment or modification".
If accepted this amendment would delete inter alia the words “by order”. The effect would be that any alteration to local electoral areas would no longer have to be effected by order but could be done by simple letter of the Minister. These are orders required to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by virtue of section 3 of the Bill and, by omitting the term “by order” this would no longer be necessary. I am certain that is not what Deputy Sargent sought to achieve.
The Minister did not include the substitution for what I had deleted, which was to consult with the local authorities affected by a proposed amendment or modification, which picks up a theme expressed on Committee Stage. Whereas the Minister appears to be freed from any accusation of power-broking by the use of the phrase "by order", he does not appear to be equally concerned to consult local authorities in regard to the changes he is implementing. Am I to understand that the phrase "by order" is a catch phrase for all sorts of consultation? Certainly it does not give that impression if my understanding of the phrase is correct. For example, could it be interpreted that some more consultative, democratic process could be put in place rather than simply coming in here, as is often the case, with a proposal already decided, a fait accompli approved by the Government, programme managers and others outside the House? Can the Minister suggest what I should write there to ensure the fullest consultation?
I am surprised at Deputy Sargent doubting not my judgment but my good faith in all this. As he is aware, I have not been involved in boundary changes. It has been a matter left absolutely to local discussion and consultation between the respective urban and county authorities.
Apart from the technical problems associated with this amendment, these orders are subject and without prejudice to Part V of the Local Government Act, 1991 which empowers the Minister to provide for the independent commission which is obliged to consult with local authorities. Any orders I then put in place will be on foot of the commission's independent report to me, having consulted local authorities. For Deputy Sargent to suggest that that involves me in some way in bringing an order into this House, with Government support and with the backing of programme managers and others, is stretching the issue to a point which in his own interest he should not attempt to do.
Will the Minister recognise what is actually happening? Proposals are brought into this House under the guise of taking everybody's views on board whereas, in practice, such proposals will already have been worked out. As the Minister himself said, much work will have gone into their preparation. The impression one gleans from reading such a simple phrase as "by order" is that it is just that, by order, sounding almost military in connotation. I want the Minister to ensure that people do not misread his intention. He almost sounds personally wounded by my doubt about his approach. If he is, as he ought be, very concerned with all of the detailed provisions of this Bill, he should be equally conscientious about specifying the consultative democratic process under which we would all wish to see such decisions taken.
I am not pressing my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 37 to 41, inclusive, not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
Amendment No. 42 in the name of Deputy Molloy. Amendments Nos. 44, 49, 50, 51, 55 to 60, inclusive, 62 to 66, inclusive, and 68 to 78, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 42. Amendment No. 52 is related and amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are consequential on amendment No. 52. It is proposed to take together amendments Nos. 42, 44, 49, 50, 51, 55 to 60, inclusive, 62 to 66, inclusive, and 68 to 78, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 48, to delete "Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach" and substitute "Méara and Leas Mhéara".
My intention in these amendments is to give the title méara agus leas-mhéara to the chairperson of local authorities rather than the title of cathaoirleach agus leas-chathaoirleach. My amendment is not as tidy as I would wish as I do not intend that it should apply to the chairpersons of county councils. The terms chairman and vice-chairman are satisfactory for county councils. We did not have sufficient time to prepare these amendments and those of us who were busy elsewhere had even less time.
The titles of méara and leas-mhéara are more suitable for chairpersons of these authorities than the Minister's proposal that they be known as cathaoirleach and leas-chathaoirleach. I do not know where the tradition of the title "mayor" originated but it is widely accepted as the title for the chairperson of local authorities in towns. In that scenario, the most appropriate titles which would be widely recognised would be méara and leas-mhéara, which can easily be translated to mayor and deputy mayor. In many cases the title of "mayor" has been established and respected. I have met mayors from different towns from different countries in Europe and also from many other Continents. It appears to be the most widely accepted title for the chairperson of a town council worldwide. While I am anxious that the title would be in Irish a more suitable title would be méara, rather than cathaoirleach which, to my recollection, has been applied officially only in the case of one local authority, the former Dún Laoghaire Borough Council.
We have a former member of that council in the House who may have something to say on that matter. I do not wish to delay the House unduly on this amendment. It may appear to be a small matter but it could do much for the status of local authorities to associate them with leaders in towns throughout the world. The title "méara" has more of an international reputation than our own strictly Irish translation of chairman into cathaoirleach.
These amendments seek to assign titles such as méara agus leas-mhéara' and ard mhéara or leas-ard mhéara to our local authorities. The present position is that boroughs and county boroughs have mayors or, in two cases, lords mayor, while for all other local authorities the title is chairman, or cathaoirleach in three cases. Generally there is no provision for deputy mayor except in Dublin. There is no legal provision for the post of vice-chairman in the case of UDCs and town commissioners and it is optional in the case of county councils.
This section provides that there will be a post of cathaoirleach and leas-chathaoirleach for every local authority but without prejudice to the continued usage of the existing titles of mayor and lord mayor. Indeed, the primary purpose of the section was to provide consistency for these posts for all local authorities. The term cathaoirleach is used for the Seanad, for many years it applied in Dún Laoghaire Borough and by virtue of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1993, it now applies to the three new county councils — Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.
Generally speaking, the title mayor, or méara as proposed, applies to urban and not to rural areas. It is interesting in this regard that the Barrington report proposed that the title "county chairman" and not mayor should apply for county councils. The term cathaoirleach is non-sexist, is already in use for local government purposes and can apply to urban and rural authorities. All in all, it seems to be quite appropriate.
However, I appreciate that there can be a range of differing views on such matters. One of the matters to be looked at by the reorganisation commission under Part X is the future nomenclature to apply to the new system of town classification, titles and corporate status. As the commission is required to consult all the town and county local authorities it can be asked to have another look at the question of the appropriate titles for chairman, chairperson, chair, cathaoirleach, méara, árd mhéara, county chairman.
Indeed, there are other more exotic titles which applied up to 1840 in various towns: "Portreeve" in Ardee, Enniscorthy, Navan, Trim and Wicklow; "Bailiff" in Dundalk; Burgomaster in Portlaoise; Provost in Bandon, Ennis, Monaghan, Tralee; Sovereign in Clonakilty, Dingle, Fethard, Naas, Kinsale, New Ross and Tuam.
In the circumstances, I ask Deputy Molloy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the commission can have a more in-depth look at this issue and decide on a variety of titles which may differentiate between the size and status of the towns and cities. I am not saying they will decide to do that but it is one possible decision they could make. Like Deputy Molloy, I have met a number of representatives from European countries and other Continents where the term mayor is widely used. It is a title I would recommend but it is a matter for decision by the reorganisation commission on the basis of the size and status of the towns and ability to perform a different range of functions. If we approach it in that way we can all have an opportunity to contribute towards getting the best result from this proposal.
Deputy Molloy said that he did not consider it a major matter. It may not be a major matter but it is important, psychologically, to get it right. We need more time to do that and the commission should do it.
Everything is relative. The issue raised in this amendment is an important one. If we establish the titles cathaoirleach and leas-chathaoirleach in this legislation they will not be changed later. In view of the Minister's comments regarding the international recognition of mayor I ask him to accept these amendments or, at least, to bring forward on Report Stage, or in the Seanad, amendments to comply with the principle proposed and to exclude county councils which may not be catered for in the amendment. I note that Deputy Sargent is proposing a similar amendment in relation to county boroughs. It is worth noting that the Irish title méara can be recognised as mayor by people who are not familiar with the Irish language. For many years there has been a desire on the part of the chairman of these authorities to be known as méara of their town. From my experience in dealing with local government reform down through the years there has always been a warm response to the suggestion that the title of mayor should apply. In France where there are thousands of local authorities, the leader of each town, no matter how small, is appointed as the mayor. The same applies throughout America and many other countries in different Continents. I do not wish to use up too much time on this matter because it means we will not have time to debate other issues but it is an immportant matter.
Is í aidhm an leasaithe maidir le lipéidí cosúil le "Ard-Mhéara" nó "Leas Ard-Mhéara" ná go mbeadh siad sa teanga dhúchais. Tá na teidil seo ar fud na hEorpa i dteanga na tíre ina bhfuil siad. Is aitheantas é do fhéiniúlacht na tíre go mbeadh na teidil seo sa teanga dhúchais go hoifigiúil. Tá an teideal "Cathaoirleach" á úsáid anois sa chomhairle chontae in a raibh mé féin mar bhall — Comhairle Chontae Fhine Gall. Roimhe sin ba é an teideal "Chairman" a bhí á úsáid i gComhairle Chontae Átha Cliath. Measim go léiríonn sé sin an tsuim atá i measc chomhairleoirí agus i measc an phobail i gcoitinne ó thaobh an Ghaeilge a chur san áit cheart maidir le teidil den tsaghas seo.
Glacaim leis an méid a dúirt an tAire maidir leis an Choimisiún agus go mbeidh athbhreithniú iomlán ar siúl agus go mba cheart dúinn dul isteach níos doimhne sa cheist agus mar sin de. An féidir leis an Aire a rá go dtabharfaidh sé aitheantas don athrú sin atá tar éis teacht isteach sna comhairlí nua — is é sin an Ghaeilge a chur in úsáid go praiticiúil mar theidil? An féidir linn glacadh leis mar sin go mbeidh sin mar chuid d'obair an Choimisiúin? Is é sin go mbeadh cothromaíocht ar fud na hÉireann agus faoi mar atá "Burgomeister" sa Ghearmáin agus "Lord Mayor" i Londain, go mbeadh "Ard-Mhéara" i mBaile Átha Cliath agus sna cathracha eile timpeall na tíre. Measaim go dtuigfidh daoine go bhfuil sé annádúrtha é sin a dhéanamh agus nach mbeadh an dá theideal ann mar chineál oidhreachta ó aimsir na Sasanach a bhí anseo agus a chuir na structúir seo i bhfeidhm. Féadaimid a rá ansin go mbaineann na teidil seo leis an dtír seo agus de bharr sin go bhfuil siad i dteanga na tíre seo.
Tuigim go maith an tábhacht atá ag baint le teidil mar seo agus táim lánsásta — agus tá sé éasca dom — geallúint faoi leith a thabhairt don Teachta gur sa slí seo a bheidh mé féin agus an Coimisiún ag dul maidir leis na ceisteanna seo.
I am unable to accede to Deputy Molloy's request but I envisage developments on the lines he has outlined on foot of the Commisson's report. I am aware of how things are done in other places and that the office holder's title reflects the stature of the office. I realise that the title must be appropriate to the stature of the office and also to the traditional and cultural differences which we should not play down. There are opportunities to consider the matter further over 12 months and reflect on what has been sought in the House. Let me assure the House that this is what I wish to see happening and we can all make a contribution to ensure that it does.
It has been stated that the Commission will have the power to make recommendations. In what section is this power given?
In Part X, section 61 (2) (a).
In view of that, does the Minister consider it appropriate to proceed with designating the title of cathaoirleach and leas-chathaoirleach instead of leaving the matter in abeyance? If the section provides that the Commission will consider this and make recommendations, why is the Minister seeking to anticipate its recommendations by inserting a section determining the titles?
An effort has been made in recent times chun an Gaeilge a úsáid níos mó i gceisteanna mar seo and to reflect matters of equality.
Section 61 (2) states:
Regulations under this subsection may make provision for — (a) the constitution of specified classes of local authority, their titles, corporate status and finances;
It refers to "titles" but it does not say they will have the right to make recommendations about the title of the officers of the authority.
My advice is that the title arises directly from the corporate status.
In view of what the Minister has just said and because the matter will come before the Commission — to which every local authority will have the right to make submission and which I am sure it will accept and to which the Minister will respond in subsequent legislation — I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 67 are consequential on amendment No. 45. Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 are alternatives to No. 45 and No. 61 is related. I suggest that we take amendments Nos. 43 and 45 to 48, inclusive, and Nos. 61 and 67 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 24, subsection (2) (a), line 1, to delete", subject to paragraph (b),".
I note from an earlier discussion that paragraph (b) would need to be deleted had we accepted the provisions of the dual mandate but it is now desirable to do that. Therefore, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 44 to 64, inclusive, not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with the method of election of a cathaoirleach and states that it shall be carried out in accordance with "such arrangements as may be prescribed for that purpose". Will these be prescribed by the Minister or is the matter dealt with in other legislation?
They will be prescribed in regulations.
The Minister for the Environment.
I thought the Minister might say the local authority.
The word "prescribed" is defined in the definition section.
I object to further ministerial involvement in this matter.
Has the Government acceded to the request that the time available for this debate be extended? Will this debate be guillotined at 6.45 p.m. or will we be given more time to complete it, given that we have not reached some of the most important sections?
The order of the House of this day has not been changed.
Is the Government refusing to make more time available?
The matter was discussed this morning but the order of the House has not been changed.
Will the Minister agree to extend the time available to enable us continue the discussion following Private Members' time?
I was willing to take this Bill last week. When I was requested to make additional time available I indicated that the Whips could meet to seek agreement. I understand no request was made until a short time ago when it was not possible to change the order.
On a point of order, earlier I asked if there would be sufficient time to resubmit an amendment to section 6 before Report Stage. I stressed the point that I wanted this information to allow me make a decision as to whether I should press or withdraw the amendment. I was informed that I would have sufficient time to resubmit it before Report Stage.
There is nothing before the Chair except the order of the House of this day. As the Minister explained, it was indicated that the Whips would discuss the matter but nothing has transpired.
I explained to the Deputy that it was unlikely that we would deal with the matter on Report Stage.
Will there be a Report Stage?
I wish to advise the Deputy that we are rapidly running out of time.
I appreciate that but I was given a promise that I would have sufficient time to resubmit the amendment to section 6 (1) (m) and (n) before Report Stage. It was withdrawn on that basis. What course of action is open to me——
The Deputy has made his point but there is nothing before the Chair except the order of the House which is unchanged.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendments Nos. 66 to 73, inclusive, not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "by regulations" and substitute "in consultation with the respective local authority or local authorities".
The Minister has shown a tendency to regulate the local authorities if he believes he can get away with it. Is he considering backing off?
I appeal to the Minister not to make a joke out of this legislation. In this section he is taking the power to make regulations which would include provision in respect of the place, date and time of meetings of a local authority; business of meetings; quorum; summons and agenda; notice of meetings, etc. Why does the Minister for the Environment need power to regulate how, where and what time a meeting will be held and what will be on the agenda? Are we talking about reform? I have an amendment opposing the section.
Look at the Barrington report.
I do not care about Barrington.
The Minister has ignored Barrington.
It is a joke that a Minister should have power to decide the agenda of a local authority meeting.
I am not seeking to do that.
That is what the section deals with.
Let me explain the purpose of this because it has been misunderstood. The existing law on local authority meetings dates back 150 years and is outdated. It differentiates between classes of local authority; it is fragmented, scattered over many enactments, inconsistent, complex and difficult to interpret.
The 1971 White Paper on local government reorganisation, with which Deputy Molloy is familiar, referred to the unsatisfactory state of the law and stated that regulations should be prepared under the Local Government Act, 1955, to update, and consolidate it. The Barrington committee, which reported in December 1990, also referred to the law on meetings as fragmented and confusing. At the end of 1992 a review group on reserved functions which included representatives of the General Council, AMAI and the county managers reported:
The law relating to local authority meetings is antiquated, unclear and scattered over many enactments. It should be consolidated, modernised and made available in a more user-friendly format.
This is the purpose of section 32.
The Local Government Act, 1955, already provides for regulations covering local authority meetings. However, although the section provides that such regulations would supersede any existing law it does not specify which. This would lead to confusion in regard to new regulations and doubt as to what old law still applied. For that reason regulations were never made under the 1955 Act. The Bill allows for the making of regulations under this section in regard to specified provisions which would cease to apply on the coming into operation of the regulations. The section simply corrects the defects in the regulatory power contained in the 1955 Act.
What is proposed under section 32 is a single set of regulations containing the law relating to local authority meetings in a modern, convenient and accessible format for the benefit of councillors, officials and the public. I hope, for the first time, to establish in law a right of public access to meetings, to remove anomalies, clarify procedures, increase public awareness and promote greater public interest.
Deputies can be assured that all the specialist groups and individuals who have looked at this over 30 years have recommended these changes. I am doing no more and no less than getting rid of archaic provisions and providing a simple solution which has been strongly recommended for a long time.
No law exists which gives the public a right to attend a council meeting and surely it is time we rectified that.
The local authority could rectify it.
The Minister said that his patience was running out. I am certainly at the end of my tether. As a member of the public I wished to follow the affairs of my own town, but was thrown out of a council meeting last week because of the provision that the public may not attend in certain instances, a matter that is open to dispute. It seems the Minister will do what he likes. The situation is farcical. This Bill has many provisions that need to be debated and we are told to forget that because not enough time has been provided, despite the willingness of Members of this House to come back later and deal responsibly with the legislation. The Minister talks about councillors being responsible. I am talking about this House being responsible.
I regret to interrupt the Deputy——
I was told that there would be time on Report Stage to discuss a provision relating to section 6. It was on that understanding that I withdrew an amendment.
I must ask the Deputy to resume his seat. As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, we cannot hear the Chair.
Deputy Sargent, I must ask you to resume your seat.
I have to press this. I was told that we would be able to debate this on Report Stage.
I will ask you to resume your seat one more time or I will have to ask another question of the Deputy, that is, that he leave the House.
I was promised that this could be discussed on Report Stage.
It is not within my brief to hear a point of order now.
On a point of order, we were all misled on this issue.
I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and, in respect of each of the sections not disposed of, the section or, as appropriate the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee; that the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, that the Bill, as amended, is hereby reported to the House; that the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment for Fourth Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
CLASS="CP">Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Yates, Ivan.
CLASS="CP">Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Shortall; Níl, Deputies Boylan and O'Donnell.
