Deputy Eamon Gilmore was in possession. I remind the House that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are alternatives to No. 3 and amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are related. By agreement yesterday, amendments Nos. 3 to 9, inclusive, are being debated together.
Supplementary Estimates, 1994. - Local Government Bill, 1994; Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:
In page 10, subsection (1), lines 32 to 38, to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) and substitute the following:
"(d) is a member of either House of the Oireachtas, or".
—(Deputy Molloy).
I was virtually finished my remarks when the debate adjourned yesterday evening. The remaining comments I wish to make relate to my amendment which is being taken with the batch of amendments under discussion. Deputy Durkan on the Order of Business drew attention to a question he tabled on the possibility of any of the army of advisers and handlers employed by Government Ministers participating in the local elections. My amendment would prevent people employed in the office of a Minister or Minister of State from participating in the elections.
There are two matters to be considered here, the first of which relates to Ministers' offices. It is a regular feature of the offices of most Ministers and Ministers of State that there are three or four people, be they programme managers, public relations people or advisers, engaged there.
I wonder what has this to do with the amendments before us.
It has a lot to do with them. We are dealing with section 6 which proposes to disqualify from membership of a local authority people such as Commissioners of the European Union and the Comptroller and Auditor General. A number of Members, including myself, have proposed that there should be deletions from or additions to that list. I am proposing to include the people employed as advisers, programme managers and so on to Government Ministers, and I have a specific reason for doing so.
During the debate yesterday there was considerable discussion as to the extent local government should be overlapped with central Government. There is probably no more centralised version of central Government than the concentration of power in the private offices of Government Ministers, which by and large rests in the political appointees made by Ministers to their offices to provide them with advice. Programme managers and advisers who are not directly accountable to this House, who, from what we hear, make the real decisions about legislation and the form in which it is introduced, are the shadow Cabinet.
I am drawing attention to the number of such persons employed in Ministers' offices, in addition to the large number of civil servants who are used in these offices to do constituency work on behalf of Minister. If one adds the number of advisers, programme managers, public relations people and civil servants who are transferred from normal Civil Service work to answering letters from constituents and attending to normal constituency servicing that most Members of the House carry out on their own behalf, there are probably between eight and ten such people engaged in work essentially designed to make Ministers look good to their constituents and to the press. If that number is multiplied by 30 there is an industry of advisers, programme managers and civil servants assigned to Ministers' offices.
A different style of Government is emerging. Very rarely does a Minister make an important announcement in this House; Ministers' announcements are made outside the House. I would be amazed if the people employed in Ministers' offices, providing advice, writing scripts, organising press conferences and processing legislation, found time to attend a humble meeting of a town commission or an urban district council and I would like to ensure that they are spared that onerous responsibility. Because of the intimate involvement of those people in the workings of Government at central level, people who in many cases are the power behind the throne, just as Ministers and Ministers of State are prevented from being members of local authorities, these people should also be so prevented. That would be a much more appropriate way of devolving the concentration of power from central level to local level than the superficial proposal to disqualify members of the Oireachtas from membership of local authorities.
I oppose amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Why were those amendments put forward?
If the Deputy was here yesterday he would have heard the reason.
I heard it. Some people have a hang-up about Deputies being members of local authorities. Why home in on TDs? Why not exclude doctors, dentists, carpenters, busmen or any other business or trade? Why should we specifically exclude people who are Members of either House of the Oireachtas? Most people who are members of a local authority have another occupation. To a large extent, politicians have a degree of flexibility and they are certainly in a better position to combine their membership of a local authority with their job as a TD or a Senator than people in nine to five jobs. I do not understand, therefore, why these amendments were put down.
Various exclusions are listed in the Bill including people of unsound mind, certain politicians and criminals. Deputy Sargent wants the exclusion of people of unsound mind removed.
How will that be measured?
Perhaps the Deputy is sensitive about this. As a member of a local authority I have often heard it said that some parties appear to be a little eccentric but I would not become too edgy about it.
The Deputy should not be too hard on himself.
Deputy Sargent wants the politicians excluded but he wants people of unsound mind to be in a position to run for an election. I find that rather surprising. I do not know whether Deputy Sargent wants the exclusion removed out of respect for people of unsound mind or out of respect for the politicians——
Respect for justice.
——but he seems to have a strange view on the matter. I do not support amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
In regard to amendment No. 7 and paragraphs (m) and (n), is that a new provision or did it always exist? Some people on Dublin City Council, members of Deputy Sargent's party, foolishly or otherwise, took a court action against the local authority. I believe it was taken against the Dublin City Council/Dublin County Council combined. The action was taken because these people felt strongly about a matter which they could not block through the normal committee structure. Whether one agrees with their action is another matter but these people, who are students of small means, now have a huge legal debt against them. I would prefer to defeat those people politically before the people rather than have them excluded or prevented from running for election because of the action they took.
If this provision was always in place I will accept it but if it is a new provision I would like the Minister to comment on it. I have some sympathy for these people. Their actions were well meaning and if the system allows someone to take a High Court action without having a guarantor or the means to back up the case, it is unfair to debar them from election afterwards.
I support the view that handlers should be debarred from participating in local elections because handlers are now becoming full time local politicians in issuing statements, etc. It is not the great disadvantage of other elected members of local authorities and members of any level that this should be the case. Because these handlers are a new invention and hold a unique position, particularly in the Labour Party, they should be debarred from standing in local authority elections and that provision should be included in the Bill. I am not sure that any of them would have sufficient time to represent people at a local level but should it happen in the future, this exclusion should be contained in the Bill.
There have been examples of handlers being more devious than local politicians in any regard. In one case I had been making representations for approximately a year, along with other representatives from the area, concerning a 7th year class in St. Patrick's national school. I received a Dáil reply on 23 June 1993 informing me that the Minister for Education had decided that this class could not be extended. On 26 March I received a letter from the Minister, dated 21 March, informing me again that this request could not be granted. I then notified all the parents who had contacted me and I gave them a copy of the Minister's reply saying that this could not be done. Lo and behold, on 21 March, the date of the Minister's reply to me, a statement by a Labour Minister in my constituency was read on Galway FM to the effect that the extension of this class had been granted. When I inquired from Galway FM I was told that they received that information from the Minister's handler. Handlers should not be involved in such matters. They should not give certain information to a TD while, in the same week, giving completely opposite information to another representative for the area.
Such people should be debarred from standing for local authority elections because of the manner in which they are now misusing their positions. It should be clearly written into the Bill that handlers are included in the list of people debarred from seeking election to local authorities or at any other level.
We should deal with this matter without reflecting on civil servants or officials. It has been a longstanding tradition of this House that they are not reflected upon and that the Minister concerned is responsible, not the officials. I do not understand the term "handlers".
I withdraw my reference to civil servants and I will direct all my anger concerning this matter at the Minister at every opportunity available to me. I have several other examples.
When I spoke earlier I dealt with the matter of the dual mandate. Deputy Ahern has raised the other matters that are contained in my amendments and I will deal with them now.
On the matter of the dual mandate, the people who are both members of local authorities and Members of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann are decision-makers. It is not by way of pointing out that doctors or anybody else should come into the same bracket. A very different criterion is used for people who are decision-makers and that must be recognised. It also relates to a democracy, to equality and to distributing the decision-making in this country as broadly as possible so that it can reflect the greatest common good and public will. That is the purpose of my amendment; it is not discriminatory as the Deputy might suggest. The same applies to Deputy Gilmore's amendment, although it is slightly limiting in that it deals only with handlers and officials and does not go so far as to include TDs. The argument, however, is basically the same, these people are decision-makers in one way or another.
My amendment, which proposes to delete paragraph (k), is sought simply on the basis that a law should not be enacted that cannot be enforced within specific parameters. If we say a person of unsound mind should not stand for election will public representatives be assessed for soundness of mind or will there be a psychological service available to treat those of unsound mind? Who defines "unsound mind"? Is the same level required for a responsible job such as chairman and for ordinary councillors? The proposal is fraught with danger and open to abuse. How can it be justified? Is it fair and objective? Down through the ages people whom we now acknowledge as geniuses were thought to have been quite mad in their own time, for example Van Gogh, whose paintings now command high prices. I am anxious to ensure we do not make laws that cannot be enforced.
The deletion sought by Deputy Gilmore is likely to be abused. I thank Deputy Ahern for his understanding and appreciate that he raised the case of a city councillor and county councillor, both of my party, faced with enormous debt. They did not incur this debt through gambling or dealing on the stock market but because they were legally advised there was a problem with a planning decision and it had to be challenged. They were prepared, in the interest of the public good, to go to whatever lengths it took within the legal process and have now incurred a substantial charge against them. According to the Bill they are put in the same category as those who defraud and are dishonest. That is the exact opposite of what they tried to do. Not only did they try to deal with the matter legally — they did not indulge in uncivil action of any kind — but out of their own meagre resources. The Minister should show understanding for people who are prepared to go to such lengths in the public interest and not put them in the same bracket as those guilty of dishonest dealing and corrupt practice. People should be entitled to challenge the law without being penalised and made give up their position on the council. That is an important part of the Bill and I hope the Minister will amend it.
If the Minister accepts my first amendment, disqualification from the date of conviction if one is a member of the Joint Services Committee, etc., would not be relevant as a Deputy would not be a councillor, and for very good reason, as many would argue. That is mentioned in the submission from the general council of county councils. The Minister should take on board the points I have made and accept the amendments.
My party and I do not agree that people should be excluded from standing for office at local or national level. In the interests of democracy people are entitled to stand for election. However, there comes a point where we must decide whether groups of people are entitled to stand and on that basis I tabled amendment No. 8.
We should devolve as much power as possible to local government if we are to have a real second tier of government which is worthwhile, workable and representative of the people we serve. It would be in the interests of democracy for people to devote their attention to either that tier of government or national Government. No one should be debarred from standing for election provided they adhere to the laws of the land.
However, I take on board the point about people working in ministerial offices and so on. I do not believe they should be debarred but their employers have a responsibility to stop what is happening at present. I am a great defender of this Chamber and the day is fast arriving when it will become irrelevant. The spin doctors and handlers arrange set pieces outside the House to ensure maximum publicity for a Minister or Minister of State and ignore the fact that they are answerable under the Constitution to this Assembly. This is part of the problem we face every morning on the Order of Business. Pure frustration drives Opposition Members when they see blatant abuse of State facilities and money to promote individuals. Major statements should be made in the House and proper answers given to parliamentary questions. A Deputy should not read in the newspaper the following morning that there was a press conference announcing the very matter he or she inquired about in the question.
People elect some of those who stand and that is their choice. It is not the fact that people stand for local government that causes the problem. That is just a sham. I hope before it is too late that the Government will wake up to what is happening and stop it. We hear about it during our campaigning for the Euro-elections. The Government parties will have a rude awakening when they knock on people's doors as a result of the behaviour of programme managers and spin doctors who spend their time promoting individuals rather than in interests of the country. At the end of the day they are paid out of taxpayers' money.
I will not use this occasion to seek to debar people who may wish to stand for election from doing so; it is up to the public to decide whether they should be elected. My amendment No. 8 endeavours to tackle the problem in a real way by forcing the Government to devolve real power to local authorities so that we have a proper and effective system of local government. When this has been achieved the Minister can then bring before both Houses of the Oireachtas a regulation which would debar Members from participating in local government.
The real argument is whether we should have two levels of government or one centralised system. Fine Gael believes that we should have a two tier system of government, local and national. When I refer to local government I mean real local government and not the present excuse for a system under which public representatives cannot blow their noses without first checking with the Minister for the Environment or the Minister for Finance. Under the relevant Acts the county manager enjoys almost twice the power of elected representatives. We pretend we have a local government system but in reality we do not.
The House should not divide on this issue — I believe some members of the Government parties share my views on it. Under my amendment Parliament will decide whether real and effective powers have been devolved to local government, and it will do so before it supports the motion which the Minister will be obliged to bring before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the way foward, and I hope the Minister will respond positively to my amendment.
I would be very concerned if paragraphs (m) and (n) were not deleted from section 6 (1). Under this section a public representative could find himself in difficulties for a number of reasons either deliberately or accidentally or through inability to pay. None of these reasons justifies the exclusion of someone from holding public office in the way proposed in the Bill. Until recently a person who did not pay his service charges because he felt they were wrong could not get a higher education grant from a local authority. That rule has rightly been changed. Rules can change because of political pressure and a person who may be in conflict with the local authority one day may have no dispute with it the following day.
In some cases people may simply be unable to pay a debt. I would cite as an example the long-standing difficulty in my local authority about section 4s. Recently the county manager proposed that councillors should hold themselves personally liable for any compensation claims which might arise from section 4s. I accept that councillors who pass section 4s should be accountable for those decisions. I do not have a problem in principle with this proposal, but I have a difficulty in imposing a surcharge on a councillor or other public representative who makes a decision in good faith in the interests of the public. Such councillors are doing their best. Even though they may be eccentric, which is a good thing in every walk of life, the majority of councillors are of sound mind and any incorrect decision they make should not reflect on the ability to act as public representatives. It would be wrong, therefore, to hold public representatives liable for any compensation claims or to exclude them from standing for election.
On amendment No. 5, the position in regard to a public representative who is fortunate enough to be elected to the Dáil and who is also serving on a local authority is very different; the two functions dovetail very well. The meetings of this House are arranged so that public representatives can carry out those dual functions. I hope my performance as a Deputy is enhanced rather than diminished through my involvement in a local authority.
As a TD I am accountable for my actions every day, yet programme managers and special advisers who wield power are not accountable and never have to answer for their actions. There is no transparency in this secret, enclosed system. I would not like to see such a system introduced at local authority level. Although the local authority system is very limited it is open and members know where they stand and that they are accountable. I would not like a secretive system of holding power to be extended to local authorities as it would diminish the extent to which they are accountable to the public.
While I welcome the Bill, it is a pity it does not go further. Calls have been made over a period of time for including photographs of the candidates in local and national elections on the ballot paper. I cannot understand the resistance to these calls as it would help those who suffer from dyslexia or are illiterate. One has only to look at the elections in South Africa to see why we should implement this proposal. I do not understand why it is not possible to include photographs on the ballot papers for local authority elections even on an experimental basis. It is a pity that no proposal along these lines has been included in this Bill which deals with local government reform.
I support the points made by previous speakers about public representatives who are both local authority members and TDs. Most Deputies served their apprenticeship in their local authorities — we were not parachuted into the Dáil. Local authorities deal with bread and butter issues and our membership of them strengthens our profile in the Dáil. Another very important aspect is that TDs remain in contact with the public through their membership of local authorities and are conscious of what is happening on the ground. If anything, it results in a better performance in this House because people can be truly representative of constituents' interests. I do not support the amendments tabled by the Green Party because it would be a retrograde step for democracy if Members of these Houses were debarred from membership of local authorities.
Fine Gael has tabled a similar amendment.
I have elaborated my reason for being in favour of membership of local authorities. There is much talk about devolution, subsidiarity and other buzz words, yet local authorities' finances are being depleted because they have to assume many functions delegated to them by the European Union. There should be a consciousness of the cost of local authorities implementing European Union regulations in parallel with a consciousness by the Government to give them assistance in that regard. There is the farcical position at present of local authorities being responsible for the maintenance of courthouses, which should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice and which merely leads to a diminution of local authorities' assets base.
Many aspects of local government beyond the proposals of this Bill must be analysed if we are serious about reform.
This is the first opportunity I have had to reply to a number of contributions last evening and this morning. I understand that the Whips are meeting with a view to agreeing an extension of the time allowed for this debate. Obviously it will finish much later this evening than had been anticipated and I am happy to facilitate the House in this regard. I was anxious to take Committee Stage last week but I understand the difficulties that posed for Members opposite.
Deputy Finucane raised the question of candidates' photographs appearing on ballot papers. That is a matter for electoral law in which a number of changes have been effected, clearly a proposal for future consideration.
I am anxious to effect changes in regard to European Union regulations presenting local authorities with financial problems in their implementation. I accept there are times when impositions require additional resources and I have some ideas on how I might help in that area in the future.
Several Members, particularly last evening, availed of the opportunity of the debate on amendments not merely to widen the debate generally but to belittle and lambaste the very nature of the proposals in this Bill yet the first person I met in the Mansion House last evening was someone who will be affected by the Bill and who congratulated me on its introduction.
Deputy Molloy has been much longer in Government than I have been. However, I have a much better record on local government reform, particularly the reforming measures introduced in the past year or two in relation to local government, road traffic, housing, the environment——
I could not get the Minister to effect the changes I wanted in local government.
I sat here yesterday evening and earlier this morning and did not interrupt anybody. The same courtesy should be shown to me to reply to some of the questions raised.
Deputy Molloy also criticised me for having postponed local elections. I might remind him that he was a member of a Government that postponed local elections in 1990; they were postponed indefinitely in 1991. There is not much point in the Deputy castigating me for taking such action as though others in the past never contemplated doing so.
Many Members referred to the powers and resources of local authorities. At no stage in our history have new powers been granted to local authorities under successive Bills. The reason it is difficult to get candidates to stand in local elections is not because local authorities do not have powers but because the overall experience of serving in public life has changed. It would be no harm to reflect on the number of ways in which it has changed. It is now much more demanding, requiring considerably greater attention, hours, dedication and commitment. That is not to decry the work of others in the past. All Members will be aware that, despite the assistance of new communications systems, electronics and so on, pressures have increased leading to a number of people deciding it is not something in which they want to engage. We are extremely anxious to encourage young people of both sexes to become engaged in politics but it is becoming more difficult, not merely because potential candidates might require more powers. There has been a deliberate attempt to use this Bill as a vehicle to present a scenario most Members know not to be in accordance with the facts. The extension of the role of local authorities, their flexibility, not only in construction, acquisition, maintenance, housing extensions, the provisions of bathrooms, remedial schemes linked with voluntary schemes and their contribution to urban renewal schemes, have no parallel in the past and there was no direct ministerial involvement.
We can look also to the activities of local authorities vis-à-vis national primary routes, their design and operations in that area. This year the level of resources being made available to them for county roads — where there are also problems — will be without parallel, £160 million between their own, State and European Union resources. There is also the drawing up and delivery of programmes in the sanitary services area where these have been delivered in parts of Dún Laoghaire, Wicklow, Arklow and other places nationwide. We should at least acknowledge that local authorities in many areas have given the public a very good service, they will be spending up to £1.6 billion this year. They are able to implement projects although we should all like to see them do more and find extra resources to help them. Members should not decry the exceptionally good work undertaken in many local authority areas.
Many contributors seemed to belittle and lambaste provisions not previously enacted by any of my predecessors. This is the first time a Government decided in favour of the establishment of town councils and extensions to town boundaries and new borough councils. Local authorities will be based in towns where there had been none to date. Over the past 20 years Fine Gael was in office for a ten-year period when all that was introduced was a Control of Dogs Bill. Therefore, it will clearly be seen that we are making progress.
There have been many unsubstantiated attacks on programme managers and people working in ministerial offices. I would have expected Deputy Molloy, and perhaps Deputy Barrett, to have known at first hand the difficulties encountered in ministerial office, simultaneously endeavouring to serve one's constituency, deal with other developments associated with the office and the support services required to do so effectively. As Members know, many of the people who work in these offices are extremely committed and dedicated. They are involved in a process of trying to deliver a good service to the community, shaping new legislation, getting agreement where there are differences. Nothing can be found wrong with that. The Government's record on legislation in the past year has been recognised to be without parallel. The amount of legislation processed exceeds that in any of the past ten years.
The dual mandate is not the major issue in this legislation. I was accused of taking this issue as the major item. Deputy Gilmore was obsessed with this issue. His party has always been open to members wishing to hold office at various levels, but there are differing views on the matter in this House. I have no hesitation in telling the House that I would have no real objection to a total ban. We should move gradually towards the separation of these two important functions. Like all Deputies I am a democrat and I listen to the views of every Member and try to reflect on what has been said. On the one hand, an argument is made for giving all powers to local authorities and, on the other, I am being asked to take a stand which is totally against the views of other Members. I try to find a balance in all that. Perhaps some think I have an obligation to go further; I do not think so. In the past I have introduced legislation in which I would have liked to go further; this is one such Bill.
Deputies Molloy and Sargent propose prohibiting all Oireachtas Members from election to or membership of a local authority. As I explained on Second Stage, I have given careful consideration to this matter and I have listened to contributions in the House and elsewhere, some of which were diametrically opposed, ranging from a blanket prohibition to absolute freedom. Such a prohibition is not the norm in most European countries. Deputies Liz McManus and Noel Ahern see continuity of local authority membership as enhancing their work in the House. There are varying views on that issue, but each Deputy is entitled to his or her view.
The Bill provides for a further extension of the process begun in 1991 of excluding a range of public office holders. This, and the related provision to preclude Oireachtas Members from being local authority cathaoirleach or leaschathaoirleach, will also serve as a signal in favour of separate local and national representation as a generally desirable objective. It is against the background of the Barrington report, a Council of Europe report, last year's report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and the views of local authority members who are not Oireachtas Members that we are obliged to examine the matter of the dual mandate with the view to making progress. I have already indicated to the House that there may be an opportunity in the future to take further steps.
Regarding Deputy Gilmore's amendment relating to staff in ministerial offices, the position is that persons, other than regular civil servants, employed in the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State are engaged as temporary unestablished civil servants on a contract basis. Their appointments are coterminous with those of the Ministers in whose offices they are employed. Because of the temporary nature of their employment, it would be inappropriate to debar them from membership of local authorities. I appreciate Deputy Barrett's contribution in relation to that matter.
Regarding Deputy Sargent's "unsound mind" proposal, disqualification of persons of "unsound mind" already applies in respect of the Dáil. The wording here is identical to that used in the Dáil code in section 41 (1) of the Electoral Act, 1992. This is not a new provision nor is it exclusive to Ireland. In most member states of the European Union it appears that severe mental illness disqualifies both for voting and for membership of the national parliament. The disqualifying condition is expressed in different ways in the various member states. For example, in Denmark, it is defined as "persons declared incapable of managing own affairs".
That covers a lot.
That could apply to Ministers, Ministers of State and probably half the Members of this House. I am sure at some stage in their career they would have said they could have managed their affairs better. In Germany the disqualification condition is expressed as "mental disability".
If this amendment is carried, it would create a somewhat anomalous position whereby persons of unsound mind would be disqualified for membership of the national Parliament, but would not be disqualified for membership of a local authority. That ineligibility would apply to persons suffering from severe mental illness or deficiency and not to persons who might, from time to time, suffer from nervous or similar disorders. Any decision in this regard, in the case of a dispute, would be a matter for the courts, having considered the medical evidence.
In regard to amendment No. 7 tabled by Deputies Gilmore and Sargent, the current law as regards the audit disqualification is contained in section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1925. It is included here in paragraph (m) as part of the consolidation of the law relating to local authority disqualifications. The disqualification only comes into effect on the expiration of the time limit for an appeal to the Minister and the courts or when the surcharge is upheld in the case of an appeal. Deputies will appreciate that a surcharge is not lightly made and will usually arise in case of illegality or misuse of funds. It is only when all the options for appeal are exhausted that the disqualification will come into effect. This provision has existed for many years and has not caused problems. I propose to move an amendment on Report Stage which will limit the duration of such a disqualification to five years; at present it continues to apply indefinitely unless the sum surcharged is paid by the member concerned.
The second disqualification the Deputies wish to have removed is the disqualification in paragraph (n) relating to moneys owed to a local authority.
For many years existing law — section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1941 — has disqualified a person for non-payment of rates. If rates were not paid disqualification automatically ensued; no court conviction was necessary. This provision will be repealed and the new situation will provide for equal treatment on a uniform basis in respect of all debts owed to a local authority. However the disqualification will only arise where the matter has been pursued to finality through the courts to the award of a final judgement, order or decree, not automatically at the end of a financial year as is currently the case for rates. The disqualification will therefore only come about after a lengthy process. The local authority will have issued reminders, followed by final notice etc. before initiating court proceedings. The section also allows time for appeal through the courts to take account of cases in which there is an appeal from a court judgement. It is only when the final decision has been made that the disqualification will come into effect. The disqualification will apply for a period of five years by virtue of subsection 2(a). This is a very reasonable approach, particularly when viewed against the current situation as regards rates. I would therefore ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendments.
The Minister has said a great deal but suggests that he might, rather than would, accept the amendment on the dual mandate if he got the support of other Deputies. Not only is the Minister in favour in principle of my amendment, but the General Council of County Councils would support it. The Commission for the Status of Women in its recommendations also supports my amendment. If the Minister is serious about being democratic he might consider asking the people who have to live with these decisions whether they support them. One may say they can make their decision at election time but there is considerable confusion about the work of councillors and that of TDs at election time, whatever about any other time.
My point is that the only people arguing against this amendment are the TDs themselves. It is a classic case of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas: why would they support this amendment if they see membership of local authorities as enhancing their work and enhancing their vote? That is their perception, but it is not accurate. It would not be the case if the public were informed on the role and functions of councillors and Oireachtas Members. TDs and councillors are able to communicate with each other and it is not essential to be at the opening of every envelope to know what is happening at local level. It calls for teamwork, the essence of democracy. It may be in the self-interest of some TDs not to support this amendment, but most favour it, including the Minister. If the Minister is concerned about the views of people in general, particularly, the councillors who are most affected by the legislation, I ask him to take stock.
The disqualification for local authority membership of a person of unsound mind raises a question that has not been answered regarding people who cannot look after their own affairs.
I did not say that.
Given that we are part of the European Union we must note how "unsound mind" is interpreted elsewhere and I wonder if there would be even fewer in this chamber if that were to be applied in practice. It raises the question of who decides on the matter and whether prospective TDs would have to undergo psychological testing, similar to what the Department of Education offers. Will the Department of the Environment operate a psychological service for adults who wish to enter public life?
May I intervene in order to save time? I will drop paragraph (k) and leave it to the electorate to choose candidates.
Deputy Gilmore and I think it is important that we delete paragraphs (m) and (n) and we have tabled an amendment to this effect. The Minister mentioned that these paragraphs deal with the abuse of funds and illegalities. I do not think this is the writing on the wall for the two city and county councillors who, on behalf of the people of Howth and its hinterland, took their grievance to the courts. Will the Minister differentiate between such action and corruption and criminal practices? Will he re-examine his decision on this case?
Members hold different views on the dual mandate. The Progressive Democrats position relates to the necessity to establish the credibility of local government. I am pleased that the Minister agrees with the thinking behind our suggestion that prohibiting Oireachtas Members from membership of local authorities would help to establish local government in its own right and would in time lead to the strengthening of the system. One of the weaknesses of the system is that reform has been put on the long finger. If local authorities were cut off from the national tier of government and had to depend on their own powers they would exercise their muscle in accelerating the reform programmes that are so necessary to strengthen the system. The fact that they hold a dual mandate dilutes the effectiveness of local authority members in campaigning for the development of their role and the allocation of badly needed finance. All the reports from the municipal authorities, the General Council of County Councils, LAMA and other bodies where councillors meet to discuss their role appeal to central Government to establish the system on a more credible basis. Their appeal has not been responded to.
It was unfair of the Minister to make the accusation that because I was in Government I should have done what I am suggesting now and that I was personally at fault for not so doing. I thought I explained my position adequately last night. The local elections were postponed in 1991 in the expectation of major reform in line with the Barrington report, which, of course, did not happen. I have been campaigning for many years, both in and out of Government, for reform of local government and one of the obstacles I met was the marked reluctance of other ministries and other parties to support the kind of changes that have been sought by the General Council of County Councils, the Municipal Authorities Association and others who commented publicly on the need for change in the system.
It was on the initiative of my own party that the Barrington Commission was established to carry out a review and make recommendations which would lead to legislation. This and the earlier Bill resulted from its recommendations, although some of the more important recommendations in its report have not been acted upon.
I do not consider the question of dual membership to be a crucial issue but the need to make local government more meaningful is. If it would help to have a bar on the dual mandate in achieving that objective, I would support it. While that also appears to be the Minister's opinion I regret that he has not been successful in convincing his colleagues to accept this bar on the dual mandate, given that this would act as a catalyst for change.
Deputy Sargent made the point that Members of this House are reluctant to give up the opportunity of standing for election to local authorities. It is in their own interests to further their political careers to have greater access to local authorities by being members of them. They are reluctant to put themselves on the chopping block. Will there ever be major developments in this area, given that the people who hold the sway and control legislation are Members of this House and feel that it would affect their standing in the community? That is the dilemma facing the Minister. We require a Minister and Government with great courage to radically reform local government. It is sad that this is not being done today.
One of the characteristics of the local government system is that the Minister has a stranglehold in that local authorities have to refer even the most minor matters to the Department for decision. While the Minister has implied that he is in favour of ending the dual mandate, he has failed to do so. I have stated my position. I suggest that the Minister is on the side of the angels. He has the power to make this decision and we would have to live with it. If he believes that this would improve the local government system and he is a crusading Minister who will devolve powers to local government, he has to make the hard decisions. It comes down to a question of leadership.
I have yet to be convinced that this change needs to be made. Because local government is so repressed, perhaps there is a need for the dual mandate to allow us serve our constituents. The Minister has to decide, but in this instance he is saying one thing and doing something else.
I appreciate the comments made by Deputy Molloy. I was not making a personal attack on him when I mentioned that he continued to serve as a member of a local authority while he was Minister; I was replying to a hefty accusation made against me last night.
To respond to Deputy McManus, although I have devolved powers to local authorities on numerous occasions, I have been asked to meet a local deputation to discuss a decision taken at local level and reverse it. We are not serving local authorities well by pretending that everything is perfect provided one obtains ministerial agreement. The Deputy knows as well as I do that while the public demands services, it is not inclined to pay. It would be far better to say this at local and national level rather than pretend that money is available when there is a limit to what the taxpayer can provide. Although I am no longer involved and have given the local authorities this power, I have been besieged to change decisions made at local level.
On the question of leadership, I would like to move a stage further. In this Bill we are continuing the process which began in 1991. Whether we like it or not, people hold very strong views on this matter. I have listened to them at my own parliamentary party meetings and in this House. If the Deputy believes that I should ignore these strongly held views, that is not my understanding of leadership.
On a point of order, if an amendment is withdrawn may it be resubmitted on Report Stage?
The answer is yes. The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
Deputies
Vótáil.
Will the Members who are claiming a division please rise?
Deputies clohessy, Harney, M. McDowell, O'Donnell, O'Malley, Quill, T. Foxe and Sargent rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 59, the names of those Deputies seeking a division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed with amendment No. 3. How stands the amendment?
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 3, to delete paragraph (k).
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. It has already been discussed with amendment No. 3.
Deputy Gilmore is not here. I will withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage, if that is in order on the Bill we are discussing.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7a:
In page 11, subsection (1) (m), line 15, after "High Court" to insert "and the disqualification shall apply and have effect for a period of five years from the date of its coming into effect".
This amendment reduces the number of years to five.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) (a) When local authorities have been conferred with real and substantial powers to perform their functions, the Minister may, by regulations, disqualify members of the Houses of the Oireachtas for being elected, for being co-opted, or for being a member of a local authority.
(b) Where it is proposed to make regulations under paragraph (a) a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
As this is a reasonable amendment I fail to understand why the Minister cannot accept it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar. Creed, Michael.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom. Harney, Mary.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Yates, Ivan.
CLASS="CP">Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McDaid, James.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
CLASS="CP">Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kenny and Boylan; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Shortall.
Amendment declared lost.