Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995

Vol. 456 No. 4

Local Elections Regulations, 1995: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

Local Elections Regulations, 1995.

copies of which regulations in draft were laid before Dáil Éireann on the 22nd day of September, 1995.

The draft regulations are laid before the House in accordance with section 22 (5) of the Local Government Act, 1994 which provides that, where regulations under that section are proposed to be made, a draft thereof 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 House.

The need to bring forward the regulations at this time arises from the necessity to implement the European Union Directive on the right to vote and stand at local elections for citizens of the European Union residing in a member state of which they are not nationals. This right was provided for in the Maastricht Treaty under which every citizen of the European Union residing in a member state of which he or she is not a national shall have the right to vote and stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the member state in which he or she resides under the same conditions as nationals of that State. The Treaty provided that the exercise of this right would be subject to detailed arrangements to be adopted by the Council. These arrangements are set out in a Council Directive made on 19 December 1994 which requires that any necessary consequential changes in domestic law should be effected before 1 January 1996.

I suppose it is pleasant to record that, in the matter of the right to vote and stand at local elections, we are well ahead of other member states. For decades before the Maastricht Treaty our local elections law had been more liberal than anything envisaged in the Treaty. The right to vote at local elections was extended to all residents, irrespective of nationality and citizenship, in 1963. In 1974, the citizenship requirement was repealed in the case of candidates at local elections.

Therefore, implementation of the European requirements does not demand any substantive change in local electoral law. However, a technical change to give full effect to the directive is required and is provided for in Article 120 of the draft regulations. In that article, the Minister for the Environment is assigned the function of certifying that Irish citizens wishing to stand at a local election in another member state are not disqualified under our law from standing at local elections here.

While the timing of the regulations responds to European requirements, the substantive purpose is to up-date and consolidate, with necessary amendments, the detailed rules for the conduct of local elections here as part of the ongoing programme of electoral law reform. The programme began with the enactment of the Electoral Act, 1992 which consolidated the law onto the conduct of Dáil elections and the registration of electors. The Presidential Elections Act, 1993 and the Referendum Act, 1994 continued this process in the presidential elections and referenda codes. Overall, the objective of the programme is to bring all the various branches of the electoral law into the last decade of the 20th century on which substantial progress has been made.

The existing law in relation to local elections is contained in a number of statutes beginning with the Electoral Act, 1963 and in a number of statutory instruments, the principal of which is the Local Elections Regulations, 1965. The primary legislation on local elections was restated, in amended and updated form, in Part III of the Local Government Act, 1994. That Part provides the enabling power for making regulations and, once these are in place, the way will be cleared to repeal the existing statutes and statutory instruments.

In addition to consolidating the rules for the conduct of local elections, the draft regulations bring procedures at these elections into line, as far as appropriate, with the Dáil election rules in the Electoral Act, 1992.

The principal change of substance provided for in the regulations is an increase in the amount of the deposit required of candidates at local elections. The level of deposit under existing regulations is £10 in the case of elections to the council of a county or county borough; in the case of elections to other local authorities — borough and urban district councils and town commissions — the deposit is £5. These levels were set 30 years ago by the Local Elections Regulations, 1965. I understand the current equivalent value of £10 and £5 in 1965 would be approximately £110 and £55 respectively. It is not proposed to increase the levels of the deposit to take account of the change in the value of money over the past 30 years; instead, the regulations provide for more modest levels of £50 and £25. To offset the impact of the proposed increase in the deposit levels, the threshold for the refund of the deposit is reduced from one-third to one-quarter of the quota. This follows the precedent set for Dáil elections in the 1992 Act.

The draft regulations allow a returning officer greater flexibility in relation to the time for counting of votes — an exercise in which we are all interested. Under existing regulations, the count may not begin until 9 a.m. on the day after polling day and counting between the hours of 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. may take place only with the agreement of the candidates. The draft regulations provide that counting for every local authority must begin not later than 9 a.m. on the day after polling day, leaving open the possibility of an earlier start. In addition, they provide that a returning officer must proceed continuously, so far as practicable, with the counting of votes except during time for necessary rest and refreshment. The regulations will not affect the practice in some local authorities, where counting for individual electoral areas may commence at different times. The change in relation to counting arrangements corresponds to amendments to the other electoral codes proposed in the Electoral Bill, 1994 now before the House for Second Reading.

The regulations also include technical changes in the rules, bringing them into line with changes made in the Dáil election rules. For example, there is a minor change in the format of the ballot paper, to provide that the surname of the candidate and the name of his or her party will be in large capitals, the forename and surname of the candidate will be in small capitals and the remaining details on each candidate will be in ordinary characters.

The penalties for offences at local elections will be increased to the same levels as those applicable to offences at a Dáil election. The level of existing penalties, which were set in 1965, is considerably lower than those under the other electoral codes. This position will be rectified in the new regulations.

The chapter in the 1965 regulations dealing with meetings and terms of office of local authorities is not reproduced in the draft regulations. This is because it is more appropriate that these matters, which are not strictly electoral, should be dealt within primary legislation rather than in regulations. The matters are now dealt with in Parts II and V of the Local Government Act, 1994.

As I have indicated, the regulations form part of the continuing process of electoral law reform. In consolidating and updating the regulations, the opportunity is taken to harmonise procedures and practices between the different electoral codes, in so far as this is practicable. I consider this a worthwhile and useful process, especially in such an important area of legislation as electoral law.

The regulations are a modest but nonetheless valuable measure of law reform and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Dempsey

I welcome the updating and consolidation of the Regulations as published by the Minister. It is the first time since 1965 the Regulations have appeared in one publication and it will be a handy reference for most of us for future election purposes. The Minister mentioned that some technical adjustments were necessary because of EU law and an EU directive, but we were well ahead of the EU in allowing EU citizens to participate in local elections here. It is good to see us giving such a lead.

I note what the Minister said about the increase in deposits from £5 and £10 to £25 and £50 respectively. This is not, as some might claim, a threat to democracy. Having the deposits at the level of £5 and £10 derided local authorities by indicating that anybody could pay £5 and make a laugh of the political process. The rates of £25 and £50 are modest. If the Regulations are open to amendment I suggest that such figures should be linked to the CPI, might be reviewed every five years and increased in line with CPI increases. In this case they would have to be rounded up to the nearest pound; one does not want to go forward as a local authority candidate searching for the odd pence.

I welcome the provisions of Regulation 51 which brings it into line with regulations for Dáil elections. Regulation 108 is similar to provisions for Dáil elections which have been in force for the last four or five general elections and deals with the question of "intimidating" the electorate on the way to the poll. I agree with the principle that, as Regulation 108 (1) states: "A person shall not interfere with or obstruct or impede an elector going to or coming from or in the vicinity of or in a polling station." This is a necessary provision, particularly in urban areas, to keep candidates, their agents and an assortment of people away from the entrances to polling stations where people were being harassed in a way that reminded me of a western film, the title of which I cannot recall, in which a cowboy had to run along a line of Indians who were clubbing him. The harassment had reached farcical proportions and had become particularly difficult in urban areas.

It might be desirable, however, to change Regulation 108 (2) (c) which restricts persons "[displaying or distributing] any notice, sign or poster (other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer) or card, circular or other document relating to the election...". I have yet to meet somebody who was intimidated, or even influenced, by a poster in a political context. This regulation is ludicrous.

I have met Deputies and local councillors who have told me of instances in urban areas where polling stations may not always be in the same place, when people did not know there was a polling station there because there was no sign of election posters or canvassers. The Minister should consider removing the term "display" from this regulation. It should remain an offence to distribute any notice, sign or poster, but it should not be an offence to display a poster within a certain distance of a polling station so that people might be reminded an election is taking place and the location of the polling station might be indicated.

I would not want to revert to the intimidation of electors going into the polling station, but let us have a little common sense and allow posters to be displayed. The Minister may wish to regulate the number of posters displayed, for example, but they should not be completely banned. It is reasonable that a party or an independent candidate should be allowed to have a display at a polling station. It is good for democracy and would at least remind people an election is taking place. I do not know anybody who has been intimidated by a poster. Some Deputies may agree with my doubts as to whether people are even influenced by posters. It would be useful, however, to make the change I suggest.

The Regulations give us an opportunity to address the topic of local government in general and whether we should bother with elections to local government. The term "local government" is a misnomer. It is not local nor is it government. It is a form of central strangulation administered locally. Our system, as it has evolved, is stifling local initiative. This is not a party political point, it is a political statement about local government because all parties have been guilty through the years. Local democracy is not just dead, we have buried it and poured concrete over it to ensure it will not be resurrected. Democratically elected councillors are ignored, insulted, denigrated and bypassed at every opportunity by all levels of the State, including local government. They have few powers and functions and that powerlessness has led to growing frustration among elected members, county managers and executives.

The public are also frustrated because they perceive the system to be unresponsive to local needs. What we have done to local government over the last 20 to 30 years is now a threat to democracy, because it has generated public cynicism about the system and representatives, at local and national levels. The public think politicians are unable to do anything to improve the quality of life for the electorate; I do not mean strokes or arranging medical cards but policy decisions for the people they are supposed to represent.

If that cynicism spreads it will infect the entire body politic, which will be a poor day for democracy. There are signs of it already; pressure groups and single issue candidates signify not an increase but a breakdown in democracy. People feel they should fight for a single issue and an individual or an area should take precedence over the common good. When that is allowed to happen, politics is debased and cynicism increases. The current system will permit that to continue. I do not believe in describing problems without putting forward a solution. To remedy this we must ensure real decision making powers return to local level. People will also have to decide that responsibility must rest at local level — often they want power and money but do not want responsibility or to take hard decisions but people must accept both sides of the coin if we are to have real democracy.

There should be real power and real responsibility at local level but we will get neither from a devolution commission. It is nonsense to set up such a commission when it consists of civil servants, eminent and able as they are. One of our better Ministers for the Environment in the last 30 years, the former Deputy Boland, is involved, but the idea is a contradiction. We are talking about devolving power to the regions but are doing so by letting the centre tell the people at the periphery what they will get. It should be the other way around — that is what subsidiarity is supposed to mean.

Mr. Allen

There is representation.

Mr. Dempsey

I accept that but my point is that someone at the top will decide what power goes to the bottom. We should look at the structure from the bottom up. I give credit to the hard working officials in the Department of the Environment but they will not want their empire diminished. They will make suggestions such as allocating parking fines towards financing local authorities.

One example is group water schemes — we have been talking for 20 years about developing this power to local authorities. Why is there a centralised system for group water schemes? Does someone think local authority engineers are such idiots that they cannot approve them? This is an issue of control and the desire and suggestions should come from the bottom, not the top. I say that with all due respect to the knowledge, expertise and commitment of those on the devolution commission. The objection is to setting up something whereby the centre decides what powers will be given to the periphery, rather than the other way round.

Mr. Allen

That is not what we are doing, that is a total misrepresentation of what is happening.

Mr. Dempsey

When the report becomes available and is debated in the House we will see who is right.

Mr. Allen

We are tackling the problem after only a few months in office.

Mr. Dempsey

When we discuss the report, if I am wrong, I will say the Minister is right. However, I do not believe any real power will be devolved in this way.

We need institutional reform. One problem which has existed under several Ministers is that local government reform has been discussed in isolation from central Government. That cannot be done — we must talk in the context of institutional reform at national and local level. This reform must ensure all services are delivered at the most appropriate level, as near as possible to the people. It must be democratic in the broadest sense — not only public representatives but local voluntary groups and the community sector should also have a say.

The reform should make local government the initiator and provider of services, not the body told by the centre to provide that service, without money being made available. Real reform does not involve the centre deciding what will be devolved to local level, or bypassing local democracy with quangos, ad hoc committees, etc., or Ministers and Governments insulting and denigrating local public representatives by telling them they are not fit to serve on State or semi-State boards.

I acknowledge that the Minister and Minister of State wish to reform and have sought co-operation from this House. Speaking on behalf of Fianna Fáil, I indicated we would co-operate as far as we could in the reform of local government, because it should be above party politics. Yesterday, however, Minister Howlin's party indicated the extent of its commitment to reform and all-party consensus. Some party members made a pre-emptive strike — it may not be the Minister's view but it was put forward as a Labour view which will go to congress. It reminded me of the politics of nod and wink, an allegation we heard often from the Opposition when we were in Government. This was using local government as a political football. To hell with local democracy and power and just be cute at this stage — pretend that the services do not have to be paid for and there are no costs, get rid of service charges because that would be popular in Dublin or elsewhere, try a little sleight of hand and fool the electorate again. The Labour Party talk about sleight of hand in financing local authorities. The Minister's colleague, Deputy Costello, issued a press statement on Monday, 2 October, which stated that the Labour Party policy commission called for the abolition of service charges and the rates support grant. The Labour Party is at it again. What it did yesterday was bad for local democracy and power.

The Labour Party proposals look good from a political point of view, although they may not look good from the points of view of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Democratic Left. I presume it is trying to get back on side. The newspaper headlines read "abolish service charges". Deputy Costello and his colleagues neglected to mention in the press release that they have consistently supported the charges. The Minister supported them in this House in June or July of this year and they were originally introduced by a Labour Party Minister. However, he wants to put that to one side. The Labour Party is now describing service charges as a blunt instrument. I have news for Deputy Costello — all forms of tax, such as income tax, commercial rates and VAT, are blunt instruments.

The proposals announced with a fanfare by the Labour Party yesterday to abolish service charges are dishonest and another attempt to hoodwink the public. According to the Labour Party they will cost approximately £160 million. I estimate that the cost is nearer to £400 million. How will it pay for this abolition of service charges, which vary from £50 to £200? It will pay for it by increasing or changing residential property tax. In other words, it will bring back some form of rates.

Who else does it propose should pay? It proposes that the old reliable, the motorist, should pay through increased motor taxation. By my calculations and the figure of £160 million supplied by the Labour Party for this change in local government financing, the residential property tax yield would have to be increased by about 800 per cent. I am sure householders will be very interested to know how the RPT yield will be increased by 800 per cent when there was so much squealing about the increases proposed last year, which were subsequently changed by this Government. Alternatively, a 75 per cent increase in motor and road taxation would not be very popular, along with the increase in tolls proposed by this Government.

I hope the proposals of the Labour Party yesterday are not an indication of what the Minister for Finance meant when he said he would shift the emphasis from direct taxation in order to leave more money in people's pockets. How long will people have more money in their pockets? Will it last two days?

This must all be seen in the context of other proposals — mostly made by Labour Party Ministers — such as a tax on videos and walkmans, which seems to have been abandoned recently, higher ESB charges, tolls and a tax on trucks, proposed by the Taoiseach. Perhaps that is a debate for another day, but the Labour Party will have to do better than it did yesterday. The Minister will have to ensure that people know Government policy in this area.

It is important to mention these matters because we have not had a debate on local government for some time in this House. Our parliamentary questions on the environment are pushed to one side because of various procedures in the House.

I welcome the regulations which underline the progressiveness of this country in electoral law for local government over the last 20 or 30 years.

Miss Quill

I also welcome the regulations which my party supports. It is a modest but, nonetheless, significant measure to streamline our electoral laws and bring the rules and regulations for local elections into line with those in respect of general elections. That is as it should be. It is a tiny measure which gives additional status to locally elected public representatives at a time when, unfortunately, their status is low. Therefore, this modest measure is to be welcomed on behalf of locally elected representatives, of whom I am one.

It is sad that locally elected representatives have been so stripped of function by successive governments since the formation of this State, that in many cases they are seen as a crowd of junketeers waiting for the next junket. That is grossly unfair to the large majority of locally elected representatives because not all councillors are junketeers, just as not all priests are paedophiles. A great deal of hard slog and grinding work which deserves recognition is done daily on behalf of our citizens by county and city councillors.

There is some recognition of the importance of local elections in these regulations. I support them and particularly welcome the part which seeks to speed up the counting of votes in elections. This country falls far behind others in terms of counting votes and the delivery of election results. Sometimes candidates have to wait days for the result of an election. That is particularly acute where a recount is called for, of which I have some experience. On three occasions in the past ten years my result has been the subject of a recount.

Mr. Allen

A photo finish.

Miss Quill

I do not know if my 1989 election could be described as a photo finish as I was a respectable 92 votes ahead of the candidate who called for the recount, which yielded me an extra vote for which I was very grateful. I think that 92 votes is a respectable margin.

In the 1985 local election I was elected alderman in my ward. That was a matter of particular pride to me because it was the first time — and likely to be the only time — that I headed a poll in an election. I was just about to be declared elected first past the post when a candidate down the field demanded a recount. All the votes were put back into the melting pot. It was two days later before the final result was announced.

We are inordinately slow in delivering election results. Any mechanism that could be put in place to speed up results ought to be worked at and must be welcomed. There is a modest measure in these regulations that would help to open up this debate and speed up the counting of votes. However, a great deal more needs to be done. We should work towards the electronic counting of votes, as is the norm in most other European countries. It marks us out as being an inefficient country when there is so much delay between the casting of votes, the finalisation of the counting of the votes and the delivery of results. It is unsatisfactory in a modern European democracy and is a matter that ought to be addressed. I ask the Minister to give it his attention in the future. It would be good for the overall perception of the country abroad as one that deals with these matters efficiently, speedily and well. It is also important for the nerves of candidates, especially those fighting for the last seats in multi-seat constituencies.

Mr. Allen

It has been looked at, but given the transfer of votes under our PR system it would be difficult to implement.

Miss Quill

It is difficult. We will have a question and answer session on this later. If something could be done, even with our very difficult PR system, it would be welcome.

I also welcome the provision increasing the amount of the deposit. This, in its own subtle way, will add to the status of candidates. No good purpose is served when, for a very small deposit, citizens can take it upon themselves to offer themselves as fun type candidates at election time. It is important that we discourage this happening in the future.

I support the point made by Deputy Dempsey with regard to indicating more clearly the presence of polling stations on polling days in view of the new regulations that have been put in place in respect of postering. It is important, especially in urban areas, to indicate more clearly the location of polling booths. Since the level of activity around these booths has been rightly reduced, citizens often cannot identify the location of a polling station. It is important that this matter be rectified. It may not be necessary to allow for party political posters; the matters may be addressed by having sufficiently visible posters indicating the presence of a polling booth in a given area. Something needs to be done to fill the vacuum that has been created by the putting in place of new regulations in respect of canvassing in the general vicinity of polling stations on polling day.

This is the second local government measure the Government has introduced this year. In June it introduced the delimiting of the power of local authorities in respect of water charges. Now we have this set of regulations with regard to the holding of local elections. However, all we are doing here is tampering around the edges of local government when what is clearly needed and long overdue is radical overhaul, root and branch, of our local government system under the two key headings of function and finance.

Since the foundation of the State, local government has always been framed as a creature of central Government. Efforts have been made by successive Governments to advert to this and to undertake some measure of reform. However, no root and branch reform has ever taken place. As a result we have a weakened fabric of democracy.

Democracy is at its best where local government is strong and dynamic and where local citizens are seen to be involved in the making of decisions that affect their daily lives. One only has to look at Denmark, where local government is strong and dynamic to see how involved are Danish citizens in the whole democratic process, the low level of alienation from democracy and the benefit accruing to democracy within a country from seeking to strengthen the fabric and fibre of local government.

Increasingly Irish citizens are going abroad. They can see the level and standard of services delivered in cities and towns where local government is strong and has both the finance and the power to deliver services efficiently at local level. Very often it is the level of local services that determines the quality of our daily lives. They are as important as services such as public health and education. The quality of our footpaths and our roads, the quality of the cleansing that is undertaken, the quality of public lighting, the number of books that we have in our public libraries are all factors that determine the quality of lives of our citizens on a daily basis.

Where local services are delivered to a high standard, there is a citizenry interested in politics, pleased with the result and prepared to pay. This has not been the case in this country for a long time. Part of the reason there is such a reluctance on the part of citizens to pay is that they do not see value for money nor a good standard of local services. Added to this is the natural reluctance of every citizen to pay more taxation. However, for the most part citizens are fair and, if they see a good return for their money and enjoy a good level of public services at local as well as national level, they will be more willingness to pay.

It is time to have a root and branch reform of local government. The point to which local government has descended can be illustrated by the manner in which even a matter as simple as our litter laws, including fairly recent litter laws, have been framed. There is an obligation on local authorities to administer the law, but whenever citizens who litter are taken to court, the proceeds of any fines must be sent on to the central Exchequer and cannot be retained in the local government area. That is a measure of how central Government views local government.

This is the kind of issue that must be tackled in the context of the plans and proposals the Government tells us it now has in respect of the reform of local government. I understand that two commissions are currently sitting, one to tackle the overall issue of reform of local government and the other to tackle the thorny issue of its financing. That being the case, there is an urgency about having the deliberations of these commissions dealt with as quickly as possible, so that the long overdue reforms that we have all requested can be put in place. It is as important for the future of the country to deal speedily and efficiently with these matters as it is to deal with issues such as crime and unemployment.

I wish to make a key point in the context of the reforms in the knowledge that the Minister represents an urban constituency and is aware of the particular needs of cities and the special recognition which must be given them in any reform of local government or change in terms of finance or functions. I wish to give one example to illustrate my point, the funding of city roads.

On 26 July last the Minister for the Environment announced that the Government had approved proposals for a major ten-year restoration programme for regional and county roads. While this announcement was correctly given a general welcome, it is a matter of severe disappointment that county boroughs, by which I mean city streets and roadways, have been excluded from the scope of the programme. Moreover, the exclusion of such roads and streets from additional funding this year has very serious implications for the condition and upkeep of city streets, link roadways and others in housing estates in all borough areas. It also has additional implications for footpaths.

In 1992 the City and County Engineers' Association highlighted the particular needs of urban areas. The Cork City Engineer has repeatedly referred to the needs of Cork city. I do not refer to the position in Cork to be parochial — the circumstances which apply to that city apply equally to others — but because I am familiar with its problems. The huge growth — in excess of 500 per cent — in the number of cars since the 1960s is particularly noticeable in urban areas because of their large concentrations of population and the fact that they are major focal points for work, commerce and leisure. During that time there has been an even more drastic increase — estimated at approximately 5,000 per cent — in the number of heavy goods vehicles. This type of traffic has a disproportionate adverse effect on city roads and streets.

The explosion in the level of traffic since 1976 has had a very deep and critical impact on our streets. This is due mainly to the nature of city streets, the multiplicity of junctions and the consequent need for motorists to stop and start, turning movements and travel at lower speeds. These factors have caused untold damage to city streets, roadways and pavements over a prolonged period. This damage is far in excess of the damage caused to county roads and wider national primary roads. It is clear that these roads were never designed to cater for this level of traffic in the first instance. However, we must now deal with the problem and make provision for it when planning for the future.

In addition to the explosion in the volume of city traffic and the change in nature during the past ten years, severe budgetary restrictions have led to inadequate investment in road maintenance. This problem is now so critical it must be given special attention and special budgetary provision must be made for it in the context of any local government reforms.

Footpaths which represent a very high proportion of the roads network in urban areas — they account for approximately 30 per cent of the roads network in Cork city — are also in a critical condition. The maintenance of footpaths is a cause of particular concern to Cork City Council. A fair illustration of the problem is the number of public liability claims made against Cork Corporation in recent times. Despite the best efforts of city managers to reduce public liability costs, annual liability is running at an average of £1.5 million. These claims have generally outstripped funding from central funds, by which I mean block grants and special scheme funds. It is not in the best interests of ratepayers or taxpayers to allow this situation to continue or to allow footpaths to remain in a condition which can be exploited by unscrupulous citizens, aided and abetted by unscrupulous lawyers. The best way to put these people out of business is to bring footpaths up to a condition which will ensure safety for all citizens.

The escalating crime problem in cities makes the provision of a proper and modern public lighting system essential. This is adjudged by the Garda as a key and important factor in the battle to contain and control criminals and deemed by citizens to give a measure of protection and security in a crime ridden era. Many people have complained to me about the poor public lighting system. The protection and security provided by a proper and modern public lighting system must be taken into account when making provision for cities.

I could refer to other issues such as cleansing, waste and other elements which make cities very complex and difficult areas to run efficiently. I referred to the situation in regard to roads to illustrate my point. The key point I want to make is that the particular and peculiar needs of cities can no longer be ignored and must be taken fully into account in any new system of funding of local government. I make this point in the knowledge that the Minister represents an urban area and has a clear understanding of these matters, probably has a better understanding of those issues than a Minister based in an urban town or a country area.

I have made a strong case for local government reform. The issue of local government funding is not and never will be an easy one. Any change in such funding will be met with public resistance, particularly if considered to be additional to current payments. Citizens need to know that if required to pay extra for local services they would be required to pay less to central Government. Citizens are aware that the most cost-effective system that could be put in place is one whereby services would be administered, designed and funded locally. There is a major case to be made for the reform of local government funding which should be done without delay. Any changes in such funding will breed hostility in some quarters and be met with resistance in many others.

I said here on more than one occasion that my party is prepared to support the Government's introduction of any reasonable system of financing local government. If the cost of local government services were increased our key requirement would be that there must be a corresponding decrease in the amount the taxpayer would be expected to pay to local government. Taxpayers cannot be expected to pay for additional local government funding. That will not work. Unless and until a root and branch reform of the type I outlined is put in place, I am not optimistic that these regulations will make a difference.

I fear that unless the local government system can be radically reformed, conscientious people will not be encouraged to enter local politics because, if elected, they would be frustrated by being in a position they could achieve very little and in which would have very little power. If that continues it will not be good for politics or democracy. Most of those who go on to become effective politicians at national level learn their trade and cut their teeth at local level. I firmly believe that it can no longer be ignored that the quality of local government services determines the quality of life of many of our citizens.

I welcome and support these regulations and look forward to their implementation. I look forward to a more comprehensive debate on local government funding and finance at a more appropriate time. Essentially this debate relates specifically to these regulations.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the minor but important local elections regulations. This measure will ensure that the rules and laws governing the holding of local elections will be the same as those governing general elections, about which we have learned so much over the years.

I take my cap off to the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, who decided some years ago, if I recall correctly, to introduce a provision to ensure that there would not be a circus of activity outside polling stations on polling day. That was a noble decision. I could never see the need for such activity whereby candidates, irrespective of who they were, positioned themselves adjacent to the polling station. I do not consider such activity had the slightest influence on how people voted. That has been shown to be correct now that such a circus has been prohibited.

Deputy Dempsey suggested that the provision relating to such activity may have gone too far because election day, particularly in rural areas, does not seem to be the same as it used to be; now people hardly know where the polling station is. I would be slow to reintroduce a system under which on the morning of polling day parties would compete to erect the largest poster. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone or there should be some public indication as to the location of polling stations. I will not stay up at night worrying about the matter, but I believe the provision to prohibit such activity was a step in the right direction.

According to the Minister's speech, and my understanding, it appears that we are ahead of many European countries in that non-nationals here are entitled to vote in local government elections. I understand many member states will introduce similar legislation. If the European Union stands for freedom and flows of money, jobs and skills across national boundaries, it is important that all candidates should be allowed to stand for election to local authorities irrespective of whether they are nationals or non-nationals. I do not believe that anybody would object to that and I am sure that measure will be widely welcomed.

I wish to refer to a technical matter to which I, as a politician and a member of Galway County Council, do not give a great deal of thought. I never spend much time worrying about what happens the day after polling day. I worry about what goes into the ballot box, not what comes out of it. The ballot papers are tightly sealed in the ballot box and one can do very little once the decisions are made. As a politician I hope that the counting procedures at polling stations will keep in step with modern technology and that people will not have to hang around polling stations during counts. An accurate and full account of the election results should be available as the public are particularly interested in what is happening in the hours following the opening of the ballot boxes.

The balance has been struck correctly in terms of the deposits election candidates are required to lodge. Local authority candidates are required to lodge a £50 deposit while urban council candidates are required to lodge £25. The amount of such deposits will not prohibit candidates from standing for election.

Through the years much has been said about devolving powers to local authorities and I have been involved in many debates as to how this might be achieved. I welcome the Government's decision to set up a commission to consider the issue of devolution of powers to local authorities. The reasons behind this measure, like those behind previous attempts to introduce such change, are sound. There is a genuine anxiety at local and Government level to ensure there is a change in the powers of local government, and there is a good reason for that.

Deputy Quill mentioned the degree of alienation between local politicians and their electorate. It is difficult to understand why that should be so because nobody is more closely associated with what happens in a council area than the local councillors. I agree with other speakers who said that being a member of a local authority is not an exciting prospect. It could be argued that being a TD is not an exciting prospect either, but we move in a different circle.

These are trying times for many of my political colleagues from all parties. The public rightly believes it is entitled to high quality local services delivered in a professional manner but it appears many people do not consider they are getting value for money. In the past many council services were too expensive. I do not intend detailing them here but on occasion those costs were out of kilter.

I have noticed that single issues which crop up in council areas generally tend to take on a life of their own. I am talking about issues such as housing and the public objecting to minority groups being housed in certain areas. On such occasions it is not pleasant being a local councillor because, for whatever reason, the anger generated at public meetings is directed at local authority members even though they may have had little to do with the decision which may have been taken in the Dáil or at some other level.

We will have to address some other matters if we are to avoid the prospect of major problems arising in our local democracy. Along with my fellow councillors in Galway I was invited some months ago to a conference organised by our new county manager. Its aim was to examine the corporate image the public had of our local authority and what that image should be five years from now. Various discussion groups of councillors from all parties were formed and we were asked to consider what we should do in Galway County Council over the next five years, other than try to be re-elected. The outcome of those discussions was heartening. Galway County Council is not any different from most other councils but those discussions clearly showed that, if given the opportunity to make them, councillors were prepared to make the hard decisions.

The charge is often levelled at local councillors that they never make the hard decisions. They will not make them if they did not create the problem they are trying to resolve. We must remember that decisions taken by local authorities directly affect every household in the local authority area whether it is to do with the fire service, libraries, rates, water charges, refuse collection, etc. There is always a connection. We must put in place a system whereby local people will know they have a well run local authority which provides a quality service at a fair price. That is what we should mean when we talk about devolution of power.

Many councillors are concerned that they are now regarded as being merely part of a regulatory body. In areas such as planning permission, design, the environment, etc. it appears that county councils only tell people what they cannot do rather than what should be done from a development point of view. That does not wash with many people. Local authorities must rethink the way they will operate in the future.

I realise this matter has been referred to many times before but in regard to the £3,000 new house grant, why cannot my local engineer in Mountbellew carry out the inspection and approve payment of the grant? Our local engineer is as qualified as the Department of the Environment engineers. Why must the inspection be carried out at a higher level? It should be remembered that the local engineer is the one who examined the site on which the house stands and if he was sufficiently qualified to decide where the house should be built, he should be allowed to inspect it for grant purposes thereby allowing the grant to be paid locally. I do not understand why that cannot be done.

A new disquieting issue has entered the equation in the past year. I am referring to the National Roads Authority. Every five years, county councils review the speed limits in towns and villages. Speed limit extensions bestow great privileges in many ways vis-à-vis the granting of planning permission, etc, in local areas. They are normally regarded as the town and village boundaries and town planning is usually undertaken within the speed limit zones.

Galway County Council's five year review of the speed limits was carried out some months ago. Our entire technical staff, local gardaí and garda superintendents, representatives of the local community and the town development associations put an enormous effort into deciding on reasonable extensions of the speed limits. That went on for the best part of a year.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

The Deputy is drifting somewhat from the regulations.

Mr. Connaughton

With all due respect, the previous speakers got equally wide range. I do not know what the road in Cork had to do with the subject matter before the House. I will certainly take note of your direction.

The National Roads Authority, without telling anybody on what it based its decision, decided to do the opposite. I cannot understand the connection between local government and what actually happens in other nationally based institutions.

The local electoral regulations are a step in the right direction. They will bring local government elections into the same arena as general elections. I do not expect anybody will have problems with them. I fully support the regulations before the House.

Mr. Callely

I will be brief. I welcome the publication of the statutory instruments in principle. I recognise that what is involved is mainly technical change, arising out of the necessity to implement the EU directive, in so far as the candidates are citizens and residents of member states. The Minister referred to the fact that in 1963 Ireland extended the right to vote at local elections. An extension of this is that people can now stand as a candidate either in Ireland or in any of the member states. That is a welcome development.

There are many other technical requirements to which I would like to refer briefly. I note that some of the general duties of the returning officer have changed, especially in relation to decision making. Heretofore the decision of candidates was necessary. Why is that not still part of the regulations? I suggest we look at the feasibility of including some provision for the agreement of candidates.

I note the deposits required of candidates at local elections which were £5 and £10 have been increased to new amounts of £25 and £50. I accept they are not huge amounts but they are huge increases. We should look at them with a view to avoiding such increases in the future and consider how they can be accommodated by means of index linking or whatever.

I welcome sections 42 to 48 which deal with voting by special voters. I welcome any development where we can further improve the availability of services for special voters. Section 56 deals with the arrangements for the actual poll, for example, the use of schools and public premises by returning officers. Those of us who have sought election have had many complaints in relation to the choosing of facilities. I appreciate it is difficult to draw a line concerning whether the electorate should vote in one facility or another.

In this House I represent the constituency of Dublin North Central, and in the Dublin Corporation, the ward of Dublin-Clontarf. On many occasions constituents have complained that although across the road from where they live there is a polling station, yet they are required to cross a couple of main roads and, perhaps, bypass one or two other polling stations to go to a polling station down the road. I am not sure how we can reach agreement and identify the electorate who would use these premises but I believe there is a better way. I suggest the Minister examine the feasibility of having agreement with identified local groups, the local public representatives or people who would be able to assist in the identification of the most suitable facility for a particular catchment area.

An issue which most of us have come across is the huge number of people involved in administration on the day of polling who are unable to cast their vote. It is regrettable that the mechanism that enables many citizens to exercise their right to vote is not able to accommodate people who may not be working in their own electoral ward or constituency ward to allow them the right to vote. I would like to see a mechanism put in place to allow such people to vote.

I wish to refer to item 124 of the regulations which deals with persons elected to one or more electoral area. Who would want the hassle, the trouble and all that goes with it? I recognise we live in a democracy but I do not know whether it is correct that one can be elected to multiple constituencies.

Reference has been made by some speakers to the calibre of candidates. The power they should be able to exercise at local level has been questioned recently. If there is not sufficient reward and if one cannot make a sufficient input at local authority level where real power is exercised, it will curtail the number of candidates and the amount of good work that can be carried out at that level. We have seen one such issue in the last 24 hours.

One of the Labour Party members is present. The Labour Party has been in Government for a number of years, yet its policymaking commission seems to want to distance it from its responsibilities in Government. It is ironic that the Labour Party, of which the Minister for the Environment is a member——

Mr. Ferris

And a democrat.

Mr. Callely

——wants to distance itself from local government charges which are imposed by many local authorities.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.