Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Apr 2003

Vol. 564 No. 3

Local Government Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Local Government Bill 2003 should be viewed as another step in the process of local government renewal which has been moving progressively forward over recent years. It is a short Bill. Its primary effect will be to end the dual mandate from the next local elections in 2004 and to continue the current long-standing arrangements for the election of the cathaoirligh of county and city councils.

The Bill must be looked at against the broader canvas of the developing roles both of the national Parliament and local government, and the distinctive but complementary roles of each now reflected in the Constitution. Local government is a separate and distinct element of our democratic system and the Bill recognises that fact.

As I have said from the outset in the Seanad, the Bill is clearly not a comprehensive overhaul of local government, nor have I ever attempted to represent it as such. I ask Members of this House not to view it in isolation, but as an element in an ongoing agenda of change for local government. Indeed I regard it as simply a starting point.

The ending of the dual mandate has been advocated by a broad range of interests for a considerable time. The Barrington report in 1990 recommended that simultaneous membership of local government and the national Parliament should end. Bodies such as the General Council of County Councils, the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and the National Youth Council have voiced support for the ending of the dual mandate. The second report of the Commission on the Status of Women recommended the ending of the dual mandate and saw it as helping to open up wider opportunity for women to enter local government. This is to be encouraged, not just as a gender issue but in terms of the diversity of views, roles and knowledge it would bring to local government given that currently only about 16% of councillors are female.

The ending of the dual mandate will bring about substantial change and together with the normal turnover at election time will help pave the way for an influx of new entrants to local government. The Bill is therefore the culmination of a long process which has been moving progressively in this direction for well over a decade.

The Local Government Act 1991 took the first step by disqualifying Ministers and Ministers of State from local authority membership. The next step was the Local Government Act 1994, which disqualified the Ceann Comhairle, Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and MEPs from local authority membership. In addition, that Act provided that from the 1999 local elections onwards Members of the Oireachtas who were councillors could not hold the position of cathaoirleach or leas-chathaoirleach of a local authority. Indeed the White Paper, Better Local Government, published in 1996 committed that Government to consider further action after the 1999 local elections.

However we have now reached the stage where 12 years after the first legislative steps were taken, the dual mandate will be brought to a close by this Bill in about a year's time. In this context it is worth noting that the ending of the dual mandate has been the official policy of almost all political parties in this House. The main Opposition parties supported the ending of the dual mandate the last time such legislation was before this House. The ending of the dual mandate will allow local government to develop its own separate role within our democracy for the first time since the foundation of the State. No longer will the conduct of council business be subject to such external constraints as parliamentary timetables, nor should it be.

The ending of the dual mandate is also a recognition of the growth in the range and complexity of local government business over the last decade. A range of issues dealt with by local authorities on a daily basis include planning, roads, traffic, housing, environmental, amenity and recreational services, together with a renewed emphasis on community development and social inclusion. To understand the implications of this for local elected members, all one must do is consider the manner in which policy-making and implementation has changed to become more inclusive and transparent, which demands a far greater level of interaction with local sectoral, community and other groups.

A still further dimension for councillors is the range of other bodies on which they sit and bring a democratically-grounded community perspective to bear. This extensive list includes health boards, county enterprise boards, tourism bodies, Leader groups, port companies, local partnerships, regional authorities and assemblies, vocational education committees and county development boards.

In parallel, at national level, the parliamentary committee system has continued to develop and provide the opportunity for members to have a much fuller role in the consideration of legislation and in the overview of Government policy generally. The demands on time have increased correspondingly. This is a trend which will undoubtedly intensify as Parliament evolves still further in tune with the key role of the Oireachtas which, under the Constitution, is charged with the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State and where the duration of parliamentary and committee sessions may well extend further in line with those of other states. The leader of Fine Gael said so today.

Is the Minister sure it is constitutional?

It is constitutional for all the others. This is just following on—

It was not tested.

The Deputy is welcome to test it. I am dealing with a principle of public life, not a point on a legal pinhead.

Against this background, how can anyone in all conscience claim there are not difficulties in simultaneously fulfilling both national and local roles satisfactorily, a task which can only become acutely more difficult in the years ahead? I believe, therefore, that a key step in supporting our democratic system, both nationally and locally, is the ending of the dual mandate and that it will bring substantial benefits to both. That being said, I understand it is a wrench for someone with many dedicated years of public service to choose to leave and perhaps more so at local level. Service to the local community, however, is not contingent on local authority membership. We must remember that Members of this House are democratically elected as public representatives to serve their country and their local communities and, in fairness, that is recognised by the public. A role in representing the local electorate and in acting as a strong advocate on local issues is not dependent on maintaining a dual mandate. Therefore, while the emphasis may change somewhat, people's role in the local community will remain very relevant. I have no doubt that in future, Oireachtas Members will continue to play their part to the full on behalf of their local areas.

What rights will they have?

The Deputy should read the Bill. I now turn to another element of the Local Government Bill 2003. As already indicated, it also discontinues arrangements currently in place which provide for the introduction of new electoral arrangements for cathaoirligh of county and city councils in 2004.

What will that do for local democracy?

The Minister, without interruption. The Deputy will have his chance to contribute.

(Interruptions).

If people were crying out for the measure the Minister would not allow it.

It is reasonable for me to put on record that members of each political party throughout the country were in contact with me about this issue. I have no doubt that the unanimous view of public representatives in all political parties is that they wanted to retain, and rightly so—

The county councillors are protecting themselves.

The democratically-elected members of any council in the country should have the right to become mayor or cathaoirleach of their city or county.

Without being elected by the people?

They are elected by the people. The effect of this will be that the present arrangements will continue even after the 2004 local elections. Cathaoirligh will be chosen by the new and democratically-elected councils from among their number, as is the case with the Taoiseach. We do not have a presidential system in this country. This is a system which has served local government very well.

(Interruptions).

He lasts a year.

Acting Chairman

I insist on order. The Deputy will have an opportunity later.

Many Taoisigh have come to this House and not lasted a year, but that is another story.

The main Opposition parties sought this measure when legislation was last before the House when they voted against the provisions for direct elections. It is a matter of record that all the Opposition parties the last time voted against directly elected chairs. Let us not play political games.

The elimination of the dual mandate is ground-breaking in terms of the political system and will bring about significant change for local government—

I thought the Minister would change the structure.

—in the way it operates and develops. These moves and others in prospect need time to bed down. As I have said already, the Bill should be viewed as another significant step in the continued development of the local government system, building on progress to date. A major independent review of local government funding will shortly get under way. Measures to improve local authority performance and the development of the role of the elected council are also a priority. The review of the strategic policy committees, which are well under way, will also feed into this process.

Over the lifetime of this Government, it is my aim to carry forward a major change agenda for local government. Change which recognises its key role as the central player in bringing together the various initiatives for social, cultural and economic development at local level and which provides a framework within which the role of elected members and the cathaoirleach can be considered and further developed – change to underpin the democratic roots of local government and with an emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness.

I now want to take a more detailed look at the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 defines the principal Act as the Local Government Act 2001. Section 2 inserts a new section 13A in the principal Act, the effect of which is to disqualify Oireachtas Members from being elected, co-opted or from being a member of a local authority. Section 13 of the 2001 Act already contains similar provisions which currently and in the same way disqualify Ministers, Ministers of State, the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, MEPs, EU office holders, judges, gardaí, civil servants and others.

Section 3 is a new section which was inserted by way of official amendment in the Seanad, about which I will say a few words. It requires the making of regulations in relation to local authorities and their dealings with Oireachtas Members. These will entitle Oireachtas Members to be supplied with notice of meetings, agendas and minutes of meetings as well as specified reports and other documentation.

That is not sufficient.

(Interruptions).

The reality is that the vast majority of Deputies have a harmonious working relationship that does not need legislation to underpin it.

Additionally, the section requires that regulations will also include provisions for other matters such as correspondence, access to information and communication generally between local authorities and Oireachtas Members. This has been welcomed by everyone in the House to whom I have spoken. The amendment brought forward in the Seanad was in response to concerns expressed by Members of both Houses and across all political parties. A key change is that regulations, which have force of law, rather than guidelines, as originally envisaged, now apply. Members will appreciate, therefore, that I have gone a long way to address the concerns expressed. Given the wide range of local government activities, it is normal that local authorities, in common with other public bodies, are from time to time approached by Oireachtas Members in relation to policy matters or the cases of individual constituents. The section will help secure their representational role in this regard. No doubt, in carrying out their role in this House, they will continue to raise matters of local importance.

I have no doubt that as time progresses in the years beyond the ending of the dual mandate, the roles of local and national representatives will evolve still further, to a point where the focus on local government matters is likely to be of much less significance to Members of both Houses operating within a fully developed committee system – a fact which will be recognised by the public. For the present, I am meeting what I accept as the real concerns which have been expressed and I am happy to do so.

Finally, I should emphasise that all local authority customers, be they elected members or members of the public, are entitled to expect a high standard of customer service. Sustaining Progress, the recent social partnership agreement, commits the Government and the social partners to the further development of a public service which is focused on the needs of its customers. For the local government sector, it indicates, inter alia, that the focus will continue to be on serving the customer better and further enhancing local democracy.

Section 4 of the Bill provides for various amendments to the Local Government Act 2001. These are consequential on the substantive changes to the Act made by the Bill affecting the dual mandate and direct election of cathaoirligh. The discontinuation of the arrangements for direct election of cathaoirligh of county and city councils is effected by section 7 of the Bill by way of the repeal of Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 2001.

The amendments set out in the Schedule to the Bill are largely consequential on that repeal and on the insertion of the new section 13A in the 2001 Act. However, the amendment to section 167 of the 2001 Act clarifies that specified provisions of the new ethics regime, introduced by that Act, will apply to all local authority employees. I hope that will be welcomed by all Members. These provisions relate to a duty to maintain proper standards of integrity and a prohibition on seeking or accepting rewards arising from official duties and a code of conduct.

Section 5 amends section 97 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, to insert a minor amendment omitted by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002. Section 6 amends the local elections regulations of 1995. These amendments arise primarily from section 14 of the Local Government Act 2001, which prohibits multiple membership of local authorities apart from membership of a county and town council.

The effect of the amendments is to apply the same arrangements as those already in place for many years and which deal with the election of the same person to a number of different local electoral areas within the same local authority. A person so elected must choose one and a casual vacancy then arises in the other electoral areas. Similar arrangements now apply for persons elected to a number of different local authorities.

The primary effect of section 7 is to repeal the provisions of the 2001 Act relating to the direct election of county and city cathaoirligh. Section 8, the last section, contains a standard provision for the Short Title and collective citation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ireland is one of the most centralised states in Europe. As the term suggests, local government should serve the people locally and not simply control them. Unfortunately, local government reform is one of the most hackneyed expressions in Irish politics. The Bill is another major disappointment for those of us who want to see real change and reform.

The Government advises that the proposals in the Bill are part of a major reform package for local government. This is not the case. Even the Title does local government a disservice. It could hardly be considered to be reforming legislation.

While dealing with the abolition of the dual mandate, the Bill allows the Government to execute a major U-turn on the question of directly elected lord mayors and mayors. I attended a public meeting in Ringsend last night which protested against a local matter about which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should be well aware. Some of those I met made the effective point that local authorities should be constituted to serve the people. Instead, they are controlled by central Government and it in turn tends to control people's way and quality of life. This is a major problem with the current systems of local government. The frustrations of the public, which I share, are understandable.

The Bill abjectly fails to convince me that it is even an attempt at serious reform of local government. It must be rejected. It is totally inadequate, it may be unconstitutional, it does a major U-turn on the question of directly elected mayors, it does nothing for the funding crisis facing local authorities and it is far too vague on the future relationship between Members of the Oireachtas and local authorities in their constituencies.

The 1991 Barrington report outlined four basic reasons for local government reform in Ireland. These include the need to develop the democratic process, to deal with the problems associated with a centralised government, to further regional, local and community development and to make the best possible use of our resources. The Bill make no meaningful attempt to address these aspects.

Most European countries have modernised the local democratic systems over the past 30 years but, unfortunately, Ireland has not followed that trend. The country has a centralised democratic system. My party leader, Deputy Kenny, a Mayo man, sees at first hand the negative impact of over-centralisation on the west. He recently presented a preliminary internal discussion paper to Fine Gael public representatives. It outlines how power can be given back to the people and how devolution and decentralisation can happen.

In a democracy, power and authority should not be wielded against the people. They make the systems and they should have their say. It is only right and fair that democratic power be devolved as close to the people as possible. Those who wield power and make decisions should be answerable and accountable to the people. This is not the case at present.

In recent times, the Government has further eroded the powers of local councillors. For example, the Protection of the Environment Bill removes their rights to set refuse charges and to make waste management plans. It is now time to reverse this trend and to give people, through their locally elected councillors, a real say in how their areas should be developed.

Fiddling with the current situation, as this Bill proposes, is not good enough. Thousands of my party activists throughout the country are debating the discussion paper circulated by our leader. Their aim is to ensure that local government is more democratically accountable. Ireland is one of the few democracies in Europe where most local authority powers and functions are delegated to a non-elected official by the national Parliament. An effective local reform package would evolve from this national debate, ensuring that power is devolved to elected public representatives rather than appointed officials. Throughout the country we are discussing issues such as the establishment of the position of executive chairmen, to be directly elected by the people every five years, whose powers will be delegated by elected councillors and not by the Oireachtas, as is currently the case in respect of county managers.

It is also critical that the position of county manager be examined and, if necessary, be re-designated, preferably by the elected councillors and the executive chairman.

That is a real change.

I agree.

Additionally, a major overhaul of the administrative structures within local authorities must be examined. Any real reform package must consider bringing the community care facility and social welfare functions under the jurisdiction of local authorities. Industrial development, enterprise and tourism promotion functions should also be considered in the context of local government structures. Such action could mean real local government reform and not just tinkering on the edge of the current system.

Prior to the last general election, I conducted a local survey, the results of which indicated that personal safety, including local and community policing, was a major issue of concern to the local residents who responded. The question of community policing functions should come under the jurisdiction of local authorities. This must be given serious consideration. General policing could be community based by leaving the solution of major crime to specialist national units. It is an issue that must be examined in detail.

In the context of local government reform we must also examine the functions of harbour boards, regional fishery boards and FÁS training. The role of the National Building Agency and its relationship with the local authorities must be re-examined. We must reverse the policy that has existed since the foundation of the State of building high density local authority estates, thereby creating the social divide that has been copperfastened by recent legislation.

Neighbouring local authorities must co-ordinate their efforts with each other to establish housing landbanks to provide services and to make housing sites available to individuals and developers. This could substantially increase the level of house construction. These changes must go hand in hand with regulations to prevent undue profiteering by individuals who would acquire publicly funded sites. Local authorities must be given powers to have a greater role in promoting the voluntary housing sector.

The importance of town councils as democratically elected bodies must be recognised in a greater way through enhanced and additional powers. We must look at the duties and powers of the town council chief executive. Again, the elected council and not the Oireachtas should allocate those powers to the chief executive. The Minister, in consultation with the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and other bodies, should undertake a review of the role of town councils.

Any such review must examine the implications of having a directly elected mayor or cathaoirleach for town councils and the devolution of some county council functions to town councils.

On the question of finance to which the Minister referred, I urge that the financing of local authorities be examined further but do not expect the Minister to suggest any solutions or proposals until after the local elections. We know that no local authority can provide its services without funding, and in the context of a major and real review of local government, services should be funded in a more realistic way. The level of funding to local authorities should be advised to Government by a new national local authority finance agency which would be established by the Government in consultation with the General Council of County Councils and the Association of the Municipal Authorities of Ireland.

I realise that some of the suggestions made for discussion are radical and would have far-reaching implications. They would require that new budgetary arrangements be put in place as part of the social welfare, health, training, enterprise, justice and marine budgets and these would have to be devolved to local authorities and the level of allocation of resources assessed in a realistic way.

The implications of these actions may be pretty enormous. However, if we are serious about real local government reform that will include devolution and decentralisation rolled into one, we must be radical because time is running out on local government and there must be action now, not later. Otherwise, local authorities and council members will continue to be effectively downgraded by the Government and relegated in the estimation of the people.

We are facing local elections in mid-2004 and, if the ongoing erosion of local authority powers continues, less than half the people will vote. How can we convince them to vote if they see local government as having a diminishing role?

The Kenny document reflects broadly the recommendations of the Barrington report which, in the main, has gathered dust since its publication in 1991. It dealt in a broad way with strategy. It dealt with a major programme of devolution from the centre to a new and revitalised local government system, with the structure of local government based on three levels – regional, county and sub-county, with implementation through a policy statement by Government as to the future role of local government and its development, with the financing of local authorities and stated there should be a link between spending and raising money to promote the responsibility and accountability of local authorities.

Hear, hear.

With the advent of the tribunal sys tem in recent years, the image of local councillors and local councils has unfortunately been badly tarnished. It is only by major reform of local government and the introduction of devolution, decentralisation, responsibility and accountability that the image and effectiveness of local government can be restored. It is time to make a new democratic agreement with the people, through far-reaching reforms. It is only then that the public will take local councillors and local councils seriously again.

As stated, the Bill is unsatisfactory as it does not set out in adequate terms the manner in which Members of the Oireachtas can deal with matters of local interest for their constituents. It is essential for Members to have access to their local authorities in regard to local issues. I am still waiting for the Minister to give us more detail on how he proposes to deal with this issue in a satisfactory way. What I have heard does not convince me. Having promised to examine how to provide greater access for Members to local authority decisions, agendas and meetings, I thought he would have come up with something of greater detail but that has not happened.

Members must have the right to regular briefing sessions with their city or county managers. This would have advantages for everyone. Members would be briefed and brought up to date on what wa happening locally while managers and local authorities would have the opportunity to discuss with Members the issues they wanted raised at national level. What we have so far is vague on this issue and the Minister must set out in detail how he proposes to strengthen this aspect of the Bill.

The suggestion that if a Member writes to a county manager, he or she may get an answer in a week, ten days or a number of weeks is not good enough. In my experience, even as a Minister of State at the then Department of Environment, agendas arrived irregularly, if at all. On one occasion – this is in the records of the Department – I was refused an agenda from a local authority in my functional area.

The Bill should, therefore, contain a proposal guaranteeing that Members of the Oireachtas have the right to have their questions answered by county managers within a specified time in a system similar to that which operates in the Oireachtas. Members should also have the right to ask questions about local authorities in Dáil Éireann and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government should not refuse to answer questions about local authority matters. These proposals would redress in some way the democratic deficit inherent in this proposed legislation.

The Deputy is centralising it again. One minute he wants decentralisation and the next centralisation.

I am talking about openness, transparency and information coming to Members.

I have raised with the Minister informally the question of health board—

The Minister could open it up. He could put pressure on county managers to answer to him and him to us.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Allen, without interruption, please.

I have raised informally with the Minister the question of health board membership. Members of the Oireachtas who are members of local authorities can be members of their health board if nominated by their local authority. This will cease with the passing of this legislation, if it is passed. However, the Minister for Health and Children appoints a number of persons to health boards. Can those appointees still be Members of the Oireachtas?

Yes. I am only dealing with local government.

This is a serious anomaly that must be addressed, perhaps not in this legislation but by the Minister for Health and Children.

I have stated the Government has done a U-turn on its proposal to introduce a system of directly elected mayors. The proposal was introduced through legislation by the previous Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, without any real attempt at local government reform and firm responsibilities being set out for the directly elected mayor. The previous Minister should have carried out a thorough review of the role of county and city managers in order that the directly elected mayors were not just ceremonial. He said at the time:

It is my intention also to promote another powerful impetus for change in the internal dynamics of local government through the direct election of a full-time cathaoirleach of cities and counties with a term of office for the five year life of the council. I am talking about a cathaoirleach who is directly answerable to the people and accountable to the elected council, who must work with the council to deliver on the full potential of the office which is highly visible and accountable, a person elected by the people who draws on powerful democratic legitimacy to speak and negotiate on behalf of the whole community with influence well beyond any formal powers and with the capacity to bring together the various elements of local governance.

What has gone wrong? What has changed since? If the previous Minister saw fit to introduce directly elected mayors at the time, what has happened since? Why this U-turn? The Government has lost its nerve and is fearful of a backlash from the public because of the lies it told and deceptions it put about in the previous general election campaign.

My party proposes that in 2004 the Lord Mayors of Cork and Dublin should be elected directly by the people for a five year term. They would be accountable to the people, accessible and visible, bring a modern government approach to the business of their cities, give stable leadership, put innovative new policy ideas on the agenda, be a voice for the people and speak up for their cities. Directly elected Lord Mayors would ensure their cities get their fair share and would represent them to the Government and EU institutions. Above all, they would not be subject to the Department of the Environment and Local Government and put their cities' interests first, even if the Minister did not like it.

Mayors could have a role to play in fostering links with cities abroad. London is an example where the city mayor, although not always revered by his city residents or the media, is still an effective voice for the city and has introduced innovative ideas such as his initiative to improve public transport and lessen traffic jams. His motto is to stand for the principle of a city governing itself, a principle that every leader of a city or town should embrace.

At this stage, there should have been a thorough examination of the responsibility of county managers in conjunction one on the introduction of directly elected mayors. If the Minister accepts my proposal for the direct election of Lords Mayor in the cities of Cork and Dublin, it should be done in an all-encompassing manner as part of a package of major local Government reform.

There is no point in electing somebody into what is now a mainly ceremonial role for five years without also giving him or her real managerial responsibilities. There must be a clear definition and separation of authority between the executive powers of local authority managers and directly elected mayors. The so-called reform of local Government brought about in the most recent Local Government Act has not worked well. From my discussions with councillors throughout the country, I have learned that the workings of strategic policy committees, SPCs, and other committees, may be effective in some cases, but in many instances it can be disastrous.

I am advocating that we have a real debate on local Government reform. This Bill, and the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003, which we will be discussing over the next number of weeks, are in conflict. The Protection of the Environment Bill takes away the power of local authority members and gives it to county managers. The Bill before us takes away the dual mandate with the intention of totally reforming local Government but, in fact, it is weakening it.

As already stated, I cannot see where the reform is. The so-called better Government legislation is not working. In many cases, SPCs meet irregularly and they have also added another layer of bureaucracy to the existing systems. Under the current system, SPCs meet and make decisions which must then be referred to a meeting of the full council. They are then often referred back to the SPCs for further discussion. This additional layer of bureaucracy is hindering progress within local authorities and is tying up both elected Members and administrators.

The idea to introduce representatives from outside bodies is not working either. They see the SPCs as talking shops, with the real decisions being made at main council meetings. This situation is totally inadequate as there is no real reform of the local authority system. Most importantly, it does nothing to improve the way services are provided and delivered to the public.

A person who contacts a local authority is usually connected to an answering machine or else the phones are off the hook. This happens even in the Minister's Department, although the system there is geared for voicemail. With the exception of the Minister, his secretaries and a few others, the Department does not operate a voicemail system. I cannot get through to an ordinary line in his Department and, as a result, I cannot access voicemail. I have submitted a question on that matter for next week. This is a symptom that has spread itself throughout the country.

The service being delivered to the public is not what it should be. We even have local authorities and town and city halls closing to the public during lunch hour when people are out and could do their business. That is totally anti-consumer and anti-public.

Unfortunately, this Bill does not deal with the manner in which powers, currently administered centrally, can be devolved to local authorities. Moreover, it is inadequate in that it does not deal with the future funding of local authorities which have become too dependent on central Government since the abolition of commercial rates.

I would also like to point out that Members of the Oireachtas are not making their own case because of any financial rewards. They are not paid for sitting on local authorities. They continue to work there because they see the mix of local and national politics as totally rational. This mix provides a national platform for Deputies who wish to raise matters of vital local interest in the Parliament of this country and, in reverse, it brings to local authorities the vast experience that Members of the Oireachtas gain from being here. Therefore, the marriage of national political activities and local political activities is balanced and fair.

The legislation, as published, is disappointing. I expected the ban on the dual mandate would be one part of a comprehensive and major local Government reform package aimed at strengthening the role of local authority members.

I would also question the legal advice that the Government received concerning the constitutionality of this proposal. Will the Minister publish in full the Attorney General's opinion on this? There is a precedent for this because two weeks ago in the House the Taoiseach published the details of the Attorney General's advice in regard to the Shannon issue. I ask the Minister now to make available the Attorney General's legal opinion on the constitutionality of the legislation.

In the absence of knowledge of the legal advice that was available to the Government – with its U-turn on directly elected mayors – and in the absence also of a strong system for interaction between Members of the Oireachtas and local authorities, I certainly cannot support the Bill. I will bring forward amendments on Committee Stage to redress the democratic deficit inherent in these proposals.

The Bill must be challenged. It is unfair as it prevents Members of the Oireachtas from being members of local authorities without putting any fair systems of communication in place. In no way does the Bill set out adequately how Members of the Oireachtas will continue to represent their constituents on local matters if the dual mandate is abolished.

Statutory regulations, not guidelines, are needed to direct local authorities on how they conduct their business with Oireachtas Members. These regulations should be available to us before a vote in the House on the Bill. The regulations should be published with the Bill. Without seeing them, we cannot, as the saying goes, buy a pig in a poke.

It is self-explanatory that the onus is on the Government, when seeking to abolish the dual mandate, to propose some reasonable alternative. This has not been done. We are now faced with the absurd situation where there is no real local government reform and where Members of the Oireachtas are being cut off from their local authorities. The Minister and his predecessors have paid lip service to strengthening the role of local government, but what have they really done? Instead of strengthening the role of local government, the proposals in the Bill, and in the recently published Environmental Protection Bill, erode their powers and give more powers to county or city managers. These proposals hit at the core of local democracy and, if not put right, will make the local elections of June 2004 a sham.

I wish to share time with Deputies Morgan and Healy.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I speak on behalf of the Green Party environment spokesperson, Deputy Cuffe, who cannot be here tonight.

The Green Party wholeheartedly supports the abolition of the dual mandate. Indeed, we are the only party where all the newly elected councillors who became Deputies resigned their seats within a short period. That is an action from which other parties might learn. Both Deputies Sargent and Gormley were re-elected without having to stand as councillors. To clarify for the Minister, there has been a swap between the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Independents and Sinn Féin.

As I mentioned, both of those Deputies, like a number of Fianna Fáil Ministers, were successfully re-elected without having been councillors. A person does not have to be a councillor to run for election, but it seems that many of the Deputies in the House are scared out of their wits that if they lose the so-called local touch someone else will come and usurp their seat.

The Deputy is the hypocrite who was giving up the wages. I checked last week and the Deputy gave up nothing. I hate hypocrites.

Deputy Ring is the hypocrite who is hiding behind constitutionality because he is scared out of his backside. That is the truth.

I hate listening to hypocrites.

Acting Chairman

I ask Deputy Ring to allow the Deputy continue.

I enjoy a bit of banter, but we have only a few minutes remaining.

I ask the Minister to follow up the abolition of the dual mandate with the introduction of single transferable voting in single seat constituencies with a top-up list. That would certainly go some way towards reassuring some of the more scared Members such as Deputy Ring.

We will see how Deputy Gogarty does on the next occasion.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share