Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Apr 2003

Vol. 565 No. 4

Local Government Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Haughey was in possession.

I was speaking about reform of local government and the reviews the Minister has initiated. I must point out that in recent years powers have been taken away from local authorities. One such power is that of waste management. This trend will have to be reversed in the context of the reviews to which I referred and the reform of local government generally.

I want to raise the question of the strategic policy committees to which other speakers also referred. In my experience the strategic policy committees are not working as originally envisaged. Management is not committed to the strategic policy committees and the outside groups and councillors are not working as well together as they should. In general, there is no evidence of real partnership in the strategic policy committees. The Minister is looking at the operation of these committees. I wish him well in this regard as I think they need to be reformed.

The arguments in favour of the ending of the dual mandate include the introduction of new talent into the political system and that more women and young people will enter it. It is suggested that Deputies will have more time for legislative work, including their work as members of Oireachtas committees. It is also suggested that all councillors will be more frequently available to undertake the increasingly complex and expanded workload of a local authority member.

An argument against the abolition of the dual mandate is that Deputies may become disconnected from the electorate and become out of touch and I believe this to be a real danger. It has happened in other countries, as other speakers have outlined. Public representatives in this State are accessible and there is a danger that national legislators would become less accessible with the abolition of the dual mandate. This is a problem we will have to deal with as best we can.

There is no doubt that the abolition of the dual mandate will be advantageous to the larger political parties. New talent will be brought into the parties, there will be more public representatives working on the ground and this should increase the party vote. There will be increased competition within the parties as opposed to between the parties. It is envisaged that this intra-party competition will bring out the vote. While this will probably benefit Fianna Fáil most, I believe it will also benefit other parties. We will have to wait to see what happens.

There is no real demand for this change. It will take a long time for the electorate to appreciate the changes this Bill makes. Deputies will be contacted for many years to come regarding local authority matters. The electorate likes its Deputies to be councillors. The oft-quoted phrase of Tip O'Neill that all politics is local is very true. Educating the public on the effect of these changes will be a major task.

Deputies will have more time for legislative work under these proposals. The Government will have to take this on board and facilitate the Oireachtas in its role of questioning Government measures, etc., and the making of legislation generally. There is no doubt this measure will have implications for Government and I hope it realises this. Neither is there any doubt that a logical outcome of the abolition of the dual mandate will be a higher turnover of Deputies at each election. This is inevitable and up and coming councillors, probably from the same party, will replace many Deputies. These are issues with which we will have to come to terms.

Other measures will, no doubt, be proposed when this Bill becomes law. Electoral reform, the introduction of a list system, single seat constituencies, a decrease in the number of Deputies, a five day Dáil working week and the abolition of the Seanad will logically follow on from this Bill. I would like to hear the Minister's views in this regard. Is there a long-term agenda of which this is only one part?

I welcome this Bill. I am especially happy to endorse the proposal to end the dual mandate whereby councillors can sit in the Oireachtas. Given the increasing indifference of voters to the electoral process, I am certain the provision ending the dual mandate will contribute greatly to political engagement. By affording more people the opportunity to become public representatives, this Bill makes a substantial contribution to restoring interest in the political process.

Membership of local councils is, for many, the first opportunity to serve in public life. However, the presence of Oireachtas Members on councils is a major obstacle to the first engagement in politics. Ending the dual mandate is an imperative for broadening the political base. By broadening the base, I am confident the Bill will increase the number of women and young people coming forward into the political process.

I found my role of councillor in County Meath vital to securing my base in north Meath over the past 29 years. I have seen massive changes in that time. While we often hear about the lack of finance available to local authorities today, I was a member of a county council when it had no money to spend and could not raise money. It is great to see the amount of money Government is now making available to local authorities. I do not believe the electorate's opinion of me will change because of the ending of the dual mandate. I applaud the confirmation by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that he will introduce regulations to compel city and county managers to give existing Oireachtas Members extensive information on local authority issues and I hope this will happen. In my experience over 29 years, I could not do anything but praise the officials of local authorities. Unfortunately, the introduction of "Better Local Government" has not improved the service to councillors or to the people. Since the introduction of "Better Local Government", we do not seem to get the same dedication that we had with older officials. I hope the Minister of State will look at this area, as it is vital for councillors and Deputies.

The number of women involved in representative politics in Ireland is low by international standards. Women are, in many ways, particularly suited to local representation. Their practical approach and affinity for community are vital characteristics for effective local representation.

Ireland has a long tradition of strong local government. Ireland has the youngest population of all EU member states. According to the 1996 census of population, almost 1.5 million – 41% – of our population of approximately 3.6 million is under 25 years of age. The European average for under-25s is 25%. It is often said that young people are the future of Irish democracy. However, young people should also be seen in the present tense. The non-participation of young people is the greatest threat and challenge facing our democratic system in the new century.

The turnout in elections has steadily declined in recent years to the point where the number voting is a minority. Recent terms have been quite alarming. At 66.2%, the 1997 general election turnout was the lowest since 1923. The 1997 presidential election turnout of 46.8% was the lowest ever for such an election as was the 1999 local elections turnout of 50.2%. Evidence suggests the turnout of voters, particularly young voters, is declining across the world particularly in developed countries. What sets Ireland apart is the turnout of first time voters. A recently published analysis of electoral participation data in 1999 showed that among the 15 countries analysed, Ireland had the lowest turnout of first time voters.

We in Fianna Fáil have tried to make ourselves more relevant to young people. Two themes that constantly come up as barriers to young people getting involved are voter registration and education. We have acted on calls to improve advertising and media campaigns to provide information and education. Two types of campaigns are identified as necessary – educational campaigns to inform people of how the system works and campaigns to encourage people to vote. The Referendum Commission has improved the position.

Everyone wants to make an impact but too many young people in Irish society consider they have little opportunity to substantially affect Government policy. However, it is possible to achieve practical changes on issues ranging from protecting public health, safeguarding consumers, and preserving the environment, to establishing meaningful financial reform.

At the heart of our plans for the Ireland of the 21st century is a new vigorous system of local government based on comprehensive and modern legislation and participation of the best statutory and voluntary organisations.

I thank Deputies Haughey and Brady for sharing time with me. I welcome the Bill. There are two types of government, central government and local government, both of which are equally important. In the past we have had a centralised form of government. In recent years local government reform has attempted to increase the range of functions of local authorities. This has led, inevitably, to a substantial increase in councillors' responsibilities and functions. They are obliged to make representations on behalf of constituents in relation to roads, housing, water, sewerage and so on. They have to attend monthly meetings of councils and sub-committees. The strategic policy committees take up a substantial amount of time. In that regard I agree with Deputy Haughey that the SPCs are not working as envisaged. The executive of my local council in Sligo has far too much of an input into the SPCs and perhaps the Minister would look at that issue.

An increasing amount of time and responsibility are devoted to the preparation of local and county development plans. All of this has placed increasing demands on councillors and slowly a councillor's job has changed and is approaching that of virtually a full-time representative. As a councillor of 12 years' standing, I have had first hand experience of the changing role in local government and have witnessed the increasing responsibilities that have come with the job. In that regard I commend the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the present Minister, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister of State, who have contributed to those increasing roles and have recognised the position of local authorities in our democracy.

Since my election to the Dáil in May 2002 I realise my work here is full-time and I have taken leave of absence from my previous employment. The House sits three days a week. With the number of Oireachtas committees increasing, the range and diversity of the job is increasing also. As a result, it is becoming almost impossible to devote the time and energy required at local level and to make that compatible with doing a full-time job as a TD. As in my case, many TDs and Senators are members of local authorities and need to attend local authority meetings and meetings and sittings of the Dáil. Given the increased amount of legislation going through the House, a huge amount of time is devoted to it. In this session we have passed 15 Bills. For that reason, it is in the interests of our constituents to have one job per person. Either one does that job at local level or one does it at national level. In this way, one can devote one's energy and ability to that job.

The second aspect of this legislation, which has been alluded to by Deputy Brady, is the very low representation of females and young people in political life. Ireland has 1.5 million people under the age of 25, constituting over 40% of the population, and has the youngest population in Europe. The number of young voters is decreasing. We had the lowest turnout of young voters in recent elections. Fianna Fáil has worked hard to increase interest among young people by engaging in an active voter registration campaign and by educating young people about public life and how the system works and encouraging them to vote. There is a danger that if present trends continue young people may feel further alienated from Government, either at national or local level. This would be a negative step.

The abolition of the dual mandate will, hopefully, encourage more young people to get involved in politics at local level. The forthcoming local elections will be the first opportunity for young people, under this legislation, to get involved. I urge as many young people as possible to do so. This is an appropriate time given the increasing apathy among young people in relation to politics in general. Likewise the rate of participation by women in politics, nationally and locally, is very low. I hope this Bill will lead to greater participation.

I congratulate the Minister on recognising that all politics is local. His inclusion of access for Oireachtas Members to all dealings of their local authority will ensure they will be able to engage with local authorities, after the passing of this Bill, as well as acting as a vital conduit between local and national affairs.

I wish to share time with Deputies Timmins, Stanton and Hayes.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

One could argue for or against the Bill. One could argue for it if it made a proper attempt to reform local government. Weighing up all the considerations, I have come to the conclusion that I oppose this legislation. If the Bill ever becomes law, it will have a negative effect on the quality of representation at Oireachtas level and at local authority level. There is an expectation that the President may refer the Bill to the Supreme Court and, if so, I do not know what will be the outcome.

Clearly, there is divided opinion in the Oireachtas about the merits or otherwise of the Bill. Opinion is divided on whether Members should be eligible to serve simultaneously in the Oireachtas and on local councils. Some Members have a passionate desire to retain their positions on local authorities while others would be relieved not to be members of local authorities. Others still, including a number of Fianna Fáil backbenchers, are opposed to the abolition of the dual mandate but will vote for the Bill. We have a strange mixture in the Dáil. Deputy Ring of our party is passionate in his desire to continue to serve on the local council and has said he will take the matter to the High Court if the Bill is passed. He has received promises of support and encouragement from Government backbenchers. Those same backbenchers could save themselves a great deal of money if they simply voted against Second Stage of the Bill, later this evening. In that way they would not have to support any High Court challenge.

I do not know what the Minister is trying to achieve with this legislation. Could his party and the smaller party not make it a rule within their parties not to allow their Oireachtas Members to stand for the local authority? That would solve their problems. Other people can make up their own minds, or the electorate should decide whether they want Deputies to serve on the local authority.

For a person to serve in the Oireachtas and on a local authority is no more a burden than serving in this House and holding down a job as a doctor, a solicitor or in business. That dual mandate is more strenuous than the dual mandate involved in being both a Dáil Deputy and a local authority member. I know that from my own experience. In my early years in the Oireachtas I was involved in my own business but found out after a short time that I could not do both, so I gave up my involvement in business but continued my mem bership of the local authority because I was well able to serve in both the Oireachtas and the local authority. When we talk about the dual mandate, we should include all dual mandates. I have no difficulty in being a Member of the Dáil and of the local authority. I was a member of two local authorities, Galway County Council and Galway City Council. It only helped me in my membership there and in my membership of the Oireachtas.

What is the Minister trying to achieve with this legislation? Is it the result of a commitment to the Progressive Democrats or is there some other reason the Government desires to eliminate the dual mandate? A Fianna Fáil backbencher, Deputy McGuinness, believes the minority party in Government has too much say. He recently turned his talents to journalism and penned a good article in which he stated that it was extraordinary to see Fianna Fáil promote a Bill that will remove the most experienced politicians from a local government structure which is falling apart and needs to be challenged. I wish I had time to quote more from his excellent article.

Ghost written.

I do not know about that. My continued membership of the Oireachtas and the local authority has been of immense benefit to me in both the Dáil and on the local authority. A Deputy's experience in the local authority greatly helps him or her in dealing with Dáil and Seanad legislation. A Member of the Dáil or Seanad who is a member of a local authority is in touch with and has an interest in what is going on. If I were not a member of a local authority, I would not have the same interest in dealing with matters. The Minister of State knows that from my involvement on Committee Stage of various Bills relevant to the environment on which I am a spokesman. Similarly, if a matter comes up in the local authority, my experience as a Deputy is very useful to me at that level. The Minister and some managers might not always like that but that is not a valid reason for introducing this legislation. There is still no substitute for the common sense and experience to be gained from being a member of a local authority. That is why it would be a mistake to pass this Bill.

The Government's change of mind regarding the proposed direct elections for mayors is an obvious indication that it is afraid its candidates in such elections would suffer the consequences of broken promises and widespread cutbacks since the general election. This Bill focuses on the abolition of the dual mandate but makes no adequate provision for how Members of the Oireachtas will continue to represent their legitimate interests at local authority level.

As already stated, the Bill is unsatisfactory. It does not set out adequate terms on which Members of the Oireachtas can deal with matters of local interest for their constituents. It is essen tial that Members of the Oireachtas have access to the local authority regarding local issues. The Minister referred to access by local authorities and Deputy Brady referred to it a minute ago. The Minister said that should this legislation be passed, he would introduce guidelines at a later stage. Why does he not place all his cards on the table now? What are those guidelines? We are putting the cart before the horse. Those guidelines should be spelled out. In planning matters, local authority members have a statutory right to get a prior notice and planning application. Will that right continue to exist for Members of the Oireachtas to cover their electoral area when they are no longer a member of the local authority? That is just one example. These matters should be spelled out in advance.

I have to ask whether this Bill is constitutionally sound. Is the Government prepared to publish the Attorney General's opinion, or would the grey areas found most likely strengthen the case for those who oppose the Bill? By taking democracy out of the hands of the people the Government is denying them the right to elect who they like to their local authority. Our Constitution provides that no person may at the same time be a Member of the Dáil and the Seanad. It states nothing about membership of a local authority and the Oireachtas. Is this Bill, therefore, constitutional? A person can be a Member of the Dáil and of the European Parliament but not of the Dáil and a local authority. I cannot see the logic of that.

On balance, local authorities will be losing much valuable experience. It is useful to have Members of the Oireachtas on local authorities because the manager cannot then instigate a putsch. It is also useful to have members of local authorities in the Oireachtas when matters of legislation concerning local authorities are being discussed there. That is why I have been swayed in my opinion.

It is interesting that the Government gave time to the three Independents supporting it to speak in opposition to the Bill. I was disappointed in Deputies Blaney and Cuffe who said they would be voting for the Bill even though they stood up in the House and slated it. They will be voting for the abolition of the dual mandate but they rightly said that the Bill was piecemeal and did nothing to reform local government. I wish they could have withheld their support to force the Government to introduce a Bill that would give proper reform of local government.

One can argue for or against the dual mandate and either argument would stand up. However, candidates should have a fundamental right to go before the electorate and allow it to decide whether or not they should be kept in two jobs. That issue should be put to bed. It is relatively straightforward. People should have freedom of choice.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, had a go at Deputy Ring in connection with Fine Gael's change of position. One thing we can be sure of is that the previous Government took the position that we should have directly-elected mayors and pulled back from that because it felt it would be ceding power to other parties or Independents and would suffer a mid-term backlash. That was a fundamental error.

Members spoke about the role of councillors. As far as I am concerned, councillors have no power. They have become lackeys of management. We can find out nothing from management about the council. I challenge any Member of the Dáil to tell me how many bank accounts his or her local authority has and the balance in those accounts. I would be surprised if anybody could tell me. I sought at our estimates meeting to find that out. I could find out only minimal information. We are kept in the dark. We have no power. We have two powers in theory. On the estimates every county council ends up fighting over €10,000 or over a local dogs' home and €60 million, or in the case of Dublin County Council more than €1 billion, is going down the tubes. We do not know what is happening. There is no accountability. If we had directly-elected mayors we could get people in who would be responsible. If this means reducing the number of councils to one per electoral area, well and good. However, until such time as we can put someone in the chair, be it an official or a politician, and question him or her like a Minister, about what he or she did with money allocated for the area, we will have no power in local government.

In the context of the development plan, county councillors are afraid to put forward amendments lest they be accused of corruption. They can consult with An Taisce and with other vested interests and do something for them, but if they want to do something progressive for a community, they are afraid to do it in case they are charged with corruption. They follow the manager's thinking hook, line and sinker, and watch people going in and out of the tribunals every other day. If they vote against a management proposal the public may say they must have been corrupt. However, very often if they had not voted against management proposals right across this country, we would be in a far worse situation than we are in.

Part of Kildare is in my parish. I wrote to Kildare County Council to make a planning representation on behalf of a constituent and received a reply informing me that my representation had not been made within five weeks and returning my submission because I had not applied in time. If that is the way county councils treat Members of the Oireachtas I want no part of this Bill. We have no power. The Minister should be serious and bring forward a proposal that gives us real power and does not turn us into yes-men and lackeys for a management that refuses to answer questions.

I want to protest at the use of the guillotine. This a very important Bill. It changes how our democratic institutions operate. Given that, every Member of this House should have had the opportunity to debate for a full 20 minutes. The Government has not allowed that. I see that as an attack on democracy.

If Members had 20 minutes, there would still have been a guillotine.

This is too serious a matter for this kind of fooling. It is very serious. Let us move on.

We have all the time in the world.

The Minister, in his speech, said this was a starting point and that he would bring forward more change. It is a shame that he did not indicate any aspect of that change to the House or to the people. There was no hint in his speech of the changes he has in mind. The Tánaiste said this morning that there would be more legislation but she could not tell me when. That is not good enough.

Local government is an institution which is fundamental to democracy and we should tamper with it very carefully. We have seen a U-turn on the question of the directly elected mayor. That proposal deserves serious debate and discussion. It is a good idea although there were problems with what was being proposed. The 1991 Barrington report proposed that we should have district councils. That was a very good idea but it has remained on the shelf since 1991. None of the Barrington recommendations has been implemented. A district council with a directly elected local mayor would personify what is needed for the people of the district. A mayoral candidate standing for election could articulate a vision for the town or the county. Whatever about county councils and corporations, town councils are virtually powerless talking shops. It is no wonder people do not wish to join them when all they get is hassle without responsibility.

The Bill itself is flawed. It says a person who is a Member of either House of the Oireachtas is disqualified from being elected or co-opted to or being a member of a local authority. It does not say such a person cannot stand for election. I could not be stopped from putting my name on the ballot paper at a local election. I could not be deemed elected but if the people decided to put me at the top of the poll could any Minister go against what the people had said? Any Deputy can stand for election to a local authority. This problem needs to be examined.

Local government should be accountable, accessible, responsive, representative and replaceable. There is no accountability at local government level. Who is responsible? If one telephones a local authority one will be sent from A to B to C and D. In the Oireachtas the buck stops with the Minister who is accountable to the Dáil. That is a fundamental building block of democracy but it does not exist at local authority level. The Minister also said he would bring forward regulations to enable Members to have a link with the local authority. It is a pity we have not seen them.

Regarding the dual mandate, I agree with Members who say there are two jobs. If we had proper reform of local government, and not local governance, politicians who chose to do so could have a full-time career in local government. This will not happen because the Government has not shown vision, there is no timescale for change and our undemocratic system gives us only minutes to speak on this major piece of legislation which will fundamentally alter how we govern the country.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. Local government is a service to the people who elect the members of local authorities but nothing in the Bill will improve the quality of local authority services.

I will confine my remarks to a few important issues. It is disgraceful that the chairman of a local authority is not part of its management team. Every Monday morning the local management team meets to take decisions for the week or month ahead but the chairman of the county council does not attend. He will be there for a photograph or for a sod turning ceremony and he will be called upon if difficulties arise or when there is hassle because of Travellers in an area but when the everyday decisions are made the chairman of the local authority is not there. That is not acceptable, it is not a good way of giving a service and it should end.

When I joined my local authority in 1991, meetings were meaningful and it took a day to get through the month's business. Nowadays our council meetings are over in a short time because the advent of SPCs has weakened the meaning of county council meetings. If they were properly organised county council meetings could be the driving force of the county and could drive an agenda for the betterment of the county.

A huge mountain has been made out of the molehill of the dual mandate. Councils are now so weakened that I am not convinced we will miss out by not being members of them. We will, however, miss being able to point out wrongdoings in the county to the county manager because no one is in a better position to keep in touch with the issues within a county than an ordinary TD who is travelling the constituency on a full-time basis.

The direct election of a mayor or council chairman would have been a major way of giving local people a say in the local authority system. This should be looked at again because people should not have been afraid of it. Democracy is about representing the views of the ordinary people. Directly electing a mayor would have improved people's interest in local government.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Sean Power and McGuinness. I am glad to contribute on this Bill. In speaking about a full-time career in local government, Deputy Stanton must give credit to the Minister, who has made the first real change in that regard. He has given local government members greater postage and telephone facilities and a starting salary.

Deputy Hayes painted a new picture of what we should be doing in each county. There is nothing to stop that happening.

It should be in the Bill.

We have the power. The biggest weakness is that decisions have not been made and we are all culpable in that regard in one way or another.

Deputy McCormack expressed concern about Fianna Fáil backbenchers having worries and concerns about the proposed changes. That is correct. It would be a very unusual piece of legislation that went through this House with unanimous support and without concern. Over the past two years I argued against the splitting of the dual mandate—

Why did the Deputy cave in to the Progressive Democrats?

The Labour Party has had the greatest number of movers in the history of the State. It took in people who already had five titles, so Deputy Broughan should not tell us about changing. I will get into that argument another day when I have more time to deal with the five units and we can talk about the Labour Party's takeover.

The tail is wagging the dog.

I fought the battle for two years and did so in the right way. I lost the battle when I found an overwhelming number within the Fianna Fáil Party moving against me. I argued the points and made my case but, as a democrat, I accept the decision and will vote for it although I have concerns about it.

I have a huge attachment to local government. I have been a member of local government since 1974 and have headed the poll in four of the five elections, with the highest vote in Cork city in the last local elections and the second highest in the previous elections. I took that as an indication of the electorate's faith in me. It is not something I boast about but it shows they wanted me. I have a greater attachment to local government than to here but I get paid better here and that is why I will stay in this House.

There are arguments for and against the Bill. The arguments for it are that a greater number of young people will become involved as public representatives and it will allow for a greater gender balance. That could happen now, there is no need to legislate for it. It is not happening in my own party in Cork city – I am the only member with a gender balance in my ward – but we do not need new legislation to ensure gender balance because that right has existed for 60 years.

The Bill will allow meetings to take place while we are in Dáil Éireann. That was a handicap of the old situation. Against that, however, we will lose a huge amount of experience at local government level. I was concerned when we lost Ministers of State because the cream rises to the top and they were the people with the necessary ability and experience. This will shift the fine balance between management, professional staff and members. There is no doubt that it will be Oireachtas Members who will take on managers when they have to be taken on. They have access to information and the corridors of power and they have the confidence and experience that go with the job. It is a fine balance and I am afraid that when we leave, the part-timer will always be beaten by the person with the full-time job.

There should not always be conflict but there will be times when it is necessary to keep the democratic process on track. That is the Bill's greatest weakness and I am concerned about it. We can train our people and get them to take their share of responsibility because there has been a weakness in the decision making process at local level. All of us are culpable in some way but there has been a tendency to give the power to managers because we were not making decisions.

I voted twice against service charges. Dick Spring reintroduced them in 1985 and 1986 and when I came into the Dáil in 1987, I was told quickly by my western colleague that there was no way charges were being funded from central Government or that they should be funded.

Dick Spring abolished service charges.

I made my argument and was beaten and since 1987 I have voted for service charges because they were local charges with a rationale behind them.

The public are not demanding these changes. If they were, they would not have given a dual mandate to an extra 21 Members of this House at the last general election. There are groups that have made representations, including our colleagues in LAMA, but most of them have their own agenda.

We must look at the financing of local government, which every party has fudged since 1982. We must also examine the decision making process. I have always tried to encourage my own group on Cork City Council to make decisions, and not always the populist ones, because otherwise the city suffers.

This Bill is simple. It deals with two issues, directly elected mayors and ending the opportunity and privilege for Senators and TDs of serving on local authorities.

Are people with experience in local authorities in a better position to carry out the functions of mayors than those with no experience? That is a difficult question to answer and I am no wiser having listened to contributions on the matter in the past two weeks. If we had directly elected mayors, people would feel greater ownership of the person in charge. The present situation suits the small number of councillors in every local authority who can aspire to becoming mayor of an authority – it is a great honour and privilege for them.

I have been a Member of this House since 1989 and of Kildare County Council since 1999. I might be unusual in that I was elected to this House before I was elected to the local authority. I do not have too many regrets in my political life but I admit that I regret even running in the last local election. I have a brother who is a sitting member for the Green Party and, against my better judgment, I ran and probably kept him out of a council seat.

The Deputy is welcome to join the Green Party himself.

I will be happy to vacate my seat in the local authority and wish all candidates in the next election the best of luck.

I have no difficulty with the Minister's ban on Members of the Oireachtas being members of a local authority. Apart from the regular monthly county council meeting, the most important meeting is the area meeting. The area meeting for Kildare County Council takes place every Thursday and, more often than not, I am not able to attend because of business here. We were voting on the Estimates in this House while my colleagues on the council were deciding on other matters. Those who elected me to a local authority would prefer it if I could attend meetings. Even though I have only been on the county council for a few years, often Dáil business and council business have clashed and I feel obliged to give preference to this House.

I was disappointed with last year's county council estimates. The Kildare county manager presented us with estimates that increased commercial rates by far in excess of inflation. It is a separate matter that business people are treated as an easy target and we take money from them at the stroke of a pen.

That is a terrible thing to do, to introduce estimates that contribute to inflation.

There were meetings where people made suggestions to remedy the situation but we did not succeed in making a single change to the book as presented by the county manager.

The Labour Party tried to make changes.

I tried as well but I am wiser about it now that it is over.

There is no doubt that local government needs to be reformed, as does this House. We currently sit on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and the only reason we do not sit on a Monday is because most local authorities meet that day. There is no valid reason we could not sit five days a week.

We find it difficult to get people into the House because the Government has decided that most Ministers should be outside the House.

I will talk to the Deputy outside the House if he wishes.

We will have to do that soon because we cannot find the Government inside it.

Democracy would be better served if we elect people to authorities who will be in a position to attend all meetings. I have not found it possible to serve my local authority as I would wish.

The Deputy's experience is not typical.

I have listened to the experience of others. I can only share my experience as a member of a local authority and a Member of the Dáil.

My views on the ending of the dual mandate are well known.

Let us hear them again.

During the last Administration and in the course of this one, I have made them clear to the Minister and my parliamentary party. However, like Deputy Dennehy, I must accept the unanimous view of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party on the dual mandate, as I had to accept the party's view on the direct election of mayors and chairpersons, as provided for in the 2000 Act. I was against that measure and I am glad to see it is to be reversed. Public representatives elected by the public should have the election of a chairman or a mayor within their own power.

If there is to be real reform in this area the Minster should amend the legislation dealing with managers to ensure the leading figures, such as mayors and chairpersons, can be included in the day-to-day operations in the manner outlined by Deputy Hayes. This is the only way in which local government can be changed because too much power has been placed in the hands of individuals. It means that public representatives are left with little or no power by comparison with what they had.

When I started out in local government 25 years ago, local representatives had greater powers and we were willing to implement decisions, be they good or bad, based on a shared know ledge. I see no reason public representatives, having been elected, should not have the power to make and implement decisions. That balance must be redressed in the context of the other legislation to be introduced by the Minister.

The Government should reject this Bill and introduce a new one.

I have a special attachment to local government. I am 25 years a member of my borough council or corporation and a member of the county council for many years. Between my late father and an uncle, we have over 120 years' commitment to local government from one family.

I do not believe there is any demand for a change to the dual mandate. In 1999, the people had the opportunity to vote for Oireachtas Members or other candidates when electing their local representatives. In a substantial number of cases they voted to elect Oireachtas Members. If there was a free vote in the House I do not believe this legislation would be carried. There is an argument in favour of giving electors freedom of choice. If somebody wants to take on the work of membership of a local authority and membership of the Oireachtas, that choice should be allowed.

I have been a member of Kilkenny County Council, Kilkenny Corporation and the Oireachtas since 1997. As local authority officials tend to clock attendance nowadays, I can confirm that I have achieved an approximate 98% attendance record at local authority meetings. In that time I have never missed meetings of Oireachtas committees. I have been able to bring the experience gained at local level to my consideration of legislation introduced to this House. It has enabled me to base my arguments at Oireachtas committee meetings on real life experience. Such input will be missing from future legislation if we pass this Bill.

The electorate, who make the choice in the first instance, never demanded this change. When local authority members availed of the retirement package in 1999, I saw how much my local authority lost in terms of experience across the political divide. When Deputy Pattison, the former Deputy Crotty and other serving Members gave up their local authority seats, the result was a stronger executive facing a weakened group of public representatives who lacked the experience required to take on officialdom.

Garret FitzGerald and the late Basil Chubb have argued that the present system encourages clientelism. I do not believe any Member of this House encourages clientelism. It does not happen. People attend our clinics week in, week out because the system is encouraging a growing public discontentment. It is not delivering services.

The introduction of Better Local Government and the SPCs within the Better Local Government structure has been a failure. It has created a layer of bureaucracy, many talking shops and much activity by officials and the SPCs, but no action. That will not change unless the Minister introduces legislation that makes county managers and officials more accountable and reverses the balance away from officials and in favour of public representatives.

One of the weaknesses in the current system is that local government is not accountable to this House. Local government officials can do as they please and Members of this House cannot hold local authorities to account. That needs to be changed. Regardless of what happens, the public will hold this House accountable and will look to Oireachtas Members to be accountable to them for the actions of local authorities. Members of the public cannot understand why the House cannot call before it county managers or local authority executives to make them accountable.

The local government system is antiquated and is not keeping pace with modern life. When contacted by telephone, county managers and directors of services respond by voicemail because they are attending courses or doing something else. They are not at their desks. Applicants for promotion at local government are interviewed by their peers or those holding similar grades elsewhere. That must be immediately changed.

It has been argued that preventing Oireachtas Members from sitting on local authorities will make way for the entry to politics of women and young people. I do not see anyone queuing in any of the political parties to attend political meetings or to seek election for public office. There needs to be radical overhaul and reform if the system is to work effectively and if those who wish to serve are to be encouraged to participate.

The Deputy should vote against the Bill.

Like Deputy McCormack, I am expected to follow my party Whip on this and other issues that are debated and agreed by the parliamentary party.

Deputy McCormack voted with his party on the question of the use by the United States military of Shannon Airport.

On a point of order, I will not have Deputy Dennehy imply that I followed my party Whip on the matter to which he referred. I voted the way I wanted on that issue.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Broughan and Sargent.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I remind the Minister that in a referendum held a few years ago, the people voted to accept the European Union charter for local self government. What is the evidence, if any, of the implementation of the charter. The Bill before us is an utterly inadequate attempt to reform local government which is why the Labour Party opposes it. We do not have a system of local government, but rather a system of local administrations.

The Deputy is dead right about that.

It is overly bureaucratic, inefficient, inappropriate for the requirements of today and irrelevant to the needs of those it purports to serve.

Absolutely. It is a waste of time.

Some years ago, the Fianna Fáil Government decided to abolish rates. At the time, a commitment was given to the people that there would be a rate support grant of 100%. The grant is now known as the local government fund and it provides less than 50% support. The Minister should take note of the point. Cork County Council, of which I have been a member since 1974, has seen its funding reduced this year by €500,000, which is the amount that would have been allocated for the collection of rates and tax on cars. I am glad the Minister is here to hear that. The council pays the staff who collect the money, which it hands to the Minister, but it is not refunded. It is appalling. The Fianna Fáil Government promised the rate support grant, but it is not keeping its word.

SPCs and other sub-committees of local authorities are mere talking shops. Where is our better local government? A couple of years ago, the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government spoke to a large audience at a conference at which I was a delegate. Seeing quite clearly what his audience was, the Minister referred to local county councillors as parish pump politicians. He was very lucky I did not interrupt him as I intended.

I never said that.

The Minister's predecessor said it at a forum where he was applauded by people who felt what he said suited them.

It was the thing to do.

One could go on and on about the appointment of directors of services. There are many criticisms of local roads. The Minister should ask the local authority of which I am a member what number of claims have been submitted this year for damage to wheels and tyres on the roads. It is enormous.

Do people submit claims for that?

It is happening because the Minister has not provided the finance. In north Cork, the Minister has reduced the budget by 22%. The politics we are interested in involves getting the work done for the people in local areas and providing them with a service.

The Deputy might accept the point that land use funding was given to north Cork which was well employed. On completion of the schemes, the money, naturally, came down. It is not a reduction.

Not at all.

Not in my area. The Minister promised money for the Ennis bypass.

These developments have reversed the process of local government and the better local government document has not been used to promote reform, but rather to reinforce the bureaucracy of local administration. It was a mistake to dismantle the professional tier of local government such as service planners. It has seriously weakened the professional and technical side of local government service and contributed to the drift away from local authority service of professional staff. They see little in the traditional career structures because, ultimately, the administration and managerial tiers have the advantage in terms of promotional opportunities. This is a regressive step.

I will make a few brief points on this very important Bill. Most of our European colleagues throughout the soon-to-be 25 member states of the EU have real local government systems. We are practically the only country in the whole of Europe which has a totally bureaucratic system which is run by the Minister of the day and mandarins from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Most of these Ministers have been members of Fianna Fáil. The little power local authorities had has been taken away by this Administration since 1997. We have seen dramatic losses of power during the current Minister's term of office in connection with housing and the waste plan. We have seen the introduction of the awful SPC system. For many years on my council, we had very good strategic committees up to 1997. We had a housing committee and a general purposes committee to address drainage, water and other essential services, which I chaired for many years. We did our business very well, we made policy and we had a civic charter, whereas now we have this awful system of SPCs which only meet now and again.

It was a Labour Minister who introduced that.

SPCs do not deliver any kind of policy formation.

Deputy Howlin introduced them.

The problem is the way in which city and county managers implemented them.

It was the Deputy's own Minister.

The Minister will have a chance to reply. In terms of local government reform, we have only had the miserable prospect of directly elected mayors, but even this has been taken away within weeks of Deputy Cullen's appointment as Minister. The direct election of mayors has been suppressed because Fianna Fáil is terrified by the prospect of fighting a direct election in every county and city.

The Deputy should not be silly.

The party has a nightmare that great personalities like Bono, Pat Kenny, Vincent Browne and other media stars like Ronan Keating would run for election as mayors of cities and counties. Fianna Fáil has decided it cannot allow that as its candidates would be buried for the first time in the councils it has run like Tammany Hall for the past 80 years.

Not at all.

Fianna Fáil would face serious competition which is why the party was determined to squash the measure as it does through section 7 of this Bill.

The Labour Party wants to see an independent and strong system of local government and we want to see an end to disgraceful local government electorates. The Seanad is now unconstitutionally based on an unconstitutional electorate.

That is not the view of the Deputy's Seanad colleagues.

If my county and city had the same number of councillors as Laois or Leitrim, my council would have 500 members. It is a grossly undemocratic basis on which to elect the Upper House and the Seanad knows it. That House is trying to do something about it to prevent itself from becoming unconstitutional. There needs to be a reform of the basic system.

Since, as Tip O'Neill said, all politics is truly local, most important policies should be decided at the level at which they apply. Issues of transport, policing and health should be dealt with locally by locally elected people. The Minister should introduce a proper system of local government.

I hope the Deputy will support my Bill next year.

Above all, he should smash the awful system of county managers. It is an unelected, tightly and bureaucratically organised near-dictatorship in many counties. In my city council before Christmas, 40 of the 52 councillors opposed the estimates. My party proposed alternative estimates but the city manager refused to accept them. Instead, he appeared to direct the law officer to state that our motions were unconsti tutional. We ended up with a budget we did not want and he got what he wanted. It is a most undemocratic system. When will the Minister do something about it?

That is because the councillors did not want to introduce realistic charges.

As there is no fundamental reform in this context, I oppose the ending of the dual mandate. It will only weaken local government—

The Deputy is saying that with a straight face.

—and senior councillors who have made policy over the years, who have led these councils and who are Members of this or the other House will be barred from taking their place in local administration.

I had a discussion before Christmas with the Minister about section 3 in terms of the facilities that would be made available to Members. I accept that he has come part of the way in this regard but I am still not happy. I have been a member of a local authority, Dublin City Council, for 12 years, during most of which time I have led the Labour Party, and I lead it today. I also represent the Fingal county area, as does the Acting Chairman, who would have exactly the same experience as me, although he was a Minister and would have had some extra clout with local officials which I do not have. We represent the Fingal county area even though we do not sit on the council.

When one is a council member, one receives agendas and minutes and meets officials face to face. That experience is different when one represents a county but does not sit on the council. For example, this afternoon I logged on to the Fingal County Council website seeking the minutes of the Malahide-Howth area committee. An important decision had been taken regarding a planning matter in that area and I wanted to see it at first hand. However, the website stated that the page was not available. Obviously there was no intention of not putting it up, but it had not been put up. These are the problems.

Section 3 is still much too weak. The Minister needs to recognise on Committee Stage that all Members are the primary elected representatives on the basis of votes cast for them. The Acting Chairman and I probably received more votes from the Fingal ward of our constituency than any of the local representatives. This elected role must be recognised in the legislation and that means not just receiving minutes, agendas, notices and so on but being informed at an early stage of major ongoing developments.

The Deputy can say goodbye to them.

We should be allowed as of right to be present at area committee and county council meetings.

The Minister will be interested to know that before Christmas when a rezoning for Baldoyle was being discussed, a member of Fingal County Council said there was a disturbing influence on the public in the gallery. I presume he meant me, that I was disturbing the county council on the basis of trying to represent my area on a critical matter that would change the lives of my constituents.

I urge the Minister to examine section 3. I accept and commend him on the extent to which he has tried to meet our demands. Tipp O'Neill was 1,000% right when he said that all politics is local, and it always will be. That is all the public wants to know. There are those who have been superstars in the House who lost their seats when they did not attend to local business. The Minster needs to strengthen section 3. He is still in the early part of his Ministry. I wish he would bring forward a real system of strong local government, like in Denmark, for example.

I know it well.

When we have a strong system like Denmark, I will agree to the dual mandate abolition. Until then, I am very unhappy.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil ar dtús báire leis na Teachtaí Sherlock agus Broughan as a gcuid ama a roinnt liom. The Bill has already been referred to by my colleague, our spokesperson on the environment, Deputy Cuffe, who set out the Green Party view on it which emanates from the principle we work with that all decisions should be made at the lowest effective level. As a party, we work on the principle of thinking globally and acting locally. Local government is something we are keen to promote and strengthen. We support the ending of the dual mandate and have acted on that principle by resigning our council seats as each of us was elected a Member of the House.

Deputy Cuffe referred to the Barrington report which went as far as to say that defence and foreign affairs were the only matters that should be dealt with by the Legislature. We have a long way to go before we deal with that level of decentralisation. That said, although the Bill falls short in terms of reform, and I agree with many of the points Deputy Broughan made, it must still be recognised that it contains within it a vital step in making local government more relevant and, ultimately, if the reforms are put in place, more effective. We certainly regret section 7 and the attempt to squash democracy by ending the possibility of directly electing mayors, but it is still the case that the principle of the dual mandate is being addressed in the Bill and for that reason we have to support it.

It is not a one-off and neither is it thoughtless. It is clear that Ministers, MEPs and civil servants cannot be councillors, and TDs cannot be cathaoirligh of local authorities. I sense a feeling of victimisation from listening to Members say that they are the only ones affected, but this approach is in line with the principle that we should strive towards local government – I say that deliberately – and not just local administration. Unfortunately, what we have in this country is a form of local administration based on the British colonial system and it is high time we moved on from that.

Some say there is no demand for this, yet it is borne out by the fact that there is a huge level of confusion in the public between what a TD and a local councillor is mandated to do. I hope this measure will go some way towards putting clear water between the functions of both.

It is also important that we have proper reform of local government. This will only come about, as Deputy Sherlock said, when the damage done by Fianna Fáil in 1977, when it promised to fund local government and reneged on it, is repaired. It is time the Government faced the fact that it must reduce levels of central taxation if funding at local level is to come about, as should be the case here and is in most other European countries. There local government has a way of funding itself that is independent from central government and is not viewed as double taxation because central government takes less proportionately than it would in this country.

They take a great deal more, for example, in Denmark, to which Deputy Broughan referred.

If local government is to be effective and operate with the funding required, we in the Parliament and the Government need to face the fact that less money should go to central Government. That is the way the trade-off must go.

The tax base would need to be expanded.

There is a worrying trend at local administrative level, namely, the growing number of administrators versus the number of engineers. The ratio of administrators to engineers is becoming so unwieldy and top-heavy that local administration is justifying itself through an extensive amount of bureaucracy and administration and becoming less effective. The Minister has a responsibility to redress that ratio.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome an opportunity to speak on the Bill. Members' views on it are passionate, no matter on what side of the debate they are. I have been a local authority member since 1996 and it has been hugely important in my role as a Government Deputy in terms of the grounding I received in local politics.

I can understand the depth of feeling of Deputies on both sides of the House who debated both angles of this measure. I am not quite clear where the Fine Gael Party stands on the issue. Many Fine Gael Deputies have argued that they are against the Bill because they do not believe it will bring about a comprehensive overhaul of local government. However, the Minister has not presented the Bill to the House on that basis. He has clearly identified that it is a short Bill to deal specifically with the issues of the dual mandate and the directly-elected cathaoirligh of local authorities. In the past we were of the impression that many members of the Opposition were in favour of the abolition of the dual mandate. If that is where they stand it is incumbent upon them to support the Bill.

If the Deputy had been here we would have explained it.

I am sure Deputy Allen will have an opportunity to speak on this matter. Maybe the leader of Fine Gael will clarify his party's position given that a colleague from my own constituency is so vocal and passionate about the dual mandate, as he is entitled to be.

Let us consider some issues the Minister raised in his speech, particularly the idea that the abolition of the dual mandate will encourage more women and young people to become involved in local government. Would it be too late to consider an amendment to abolish the dual mandate for male members only? Few women are members of local authorities. I am one of three on the county council in my own constituency and if I am not able to represent my people at local level, it may be that I will not be replaced by a woman.

The Deputy will be replaced by a man.

How can we address that? We must focus on it seriously because the lack of female representation both at local and national levels is serious.

I accept the points that the Minister makes on young people because it has become increasingly difficult for them to get elected to local authorities, thus reducing their interest in politics as a whole. We need to address this. All political parties would welcome an influx of new people at local authority level and therefore there is some merit in what the Minister is recommending. I agree with the principle of what he is saying.

It is not often that I agree with Deputy Sargent but I do in respect of the divide between national and local representatives. It is important the role of each person is identified clearly in the mind of the public. The Minister addressed this issue in his speech by saying that he believed it will become clear over time. I hope this will not take long because, if it is, many people in this House may not get re-elected. The link between local authorities and national representatives has been beneficial for Deputies in terms of helping them get elected and keeping them in touch with local matters. At local authority level, I hope councillors value the fact that Oireachtas Members are members of the council and that they bring expertise and knowledge to bear in the carrying out of their duties.

I thank Deputy Cooper-Flynn for sharing her time with me. There are clearly two schools of thought concerning the main provision of this Bill, which aims to end the dual mandate. It is thought that by breaking the link between local and national representation, a new dynamic will be unleashed that will benefit the operation of the Oireachtas and local government. Alternatively, there is a belief that we benefit both nationally and locally from the current system which involves Oireachtas Members undertaking key leadership roles at local government level and ensuring that national policy is reflected in local decisions. Both views are strongly held, as is evidenced by the debate which has taken place in my party for some time. Coming from the losing side in the debate, I rise today with a heavy heart to support the Bill, while retaining some reservations about the ending of the dual mandate. However, I congratulate the Minister on the constructive manner in which he has led the debate both within my party and in the Houses.

The Minister has convinced me that he is committed to reform of our local government system, and radical reform is needed sooner rather than later. Therefore, what we are debating is just the first in a series of measures that the Minister will bring forward during the lifetime of this Government aimed at giving us more effective local government.

Two problems must be considered. Better Local Government is not working. Management is functioning at a remove from councillors and councillors are uncertain and lack confidence in their own roles and often fail to act decisively in their policy-making role. While there is much talk of partnership at local level, from my experience and from discussions with colleagues around the country it is clear that this partnership, if it ever existed, has broken down in many counties and has been replaced by an unhealthy them and us scenario.

Better Local Government was a wonderful theory. The idea of focusing on service development and delivery, led by an SPC and implemented by a director of services with a dedicated team, was a sound one. The reality, however, is somewhat different. While the experience is not totally negative, reports of significant progress are few and far between. We are hearing of directors and other senior officials who are more inaccessible than ever before and of SPCs being used to stall initiatives rather than expedite them.

Much of the difficulty that exists on the management side derives from the strategic management initiative. It is a positive initiative that has delivered major progress in many areas of the public service, but in local government strategies have replaced action and talks about management have replaced effective hands-on, day-to-day management. In effect, senior personnel seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time talking about how they might do a job rather than just doing it, and management has become professionalised without necessarily being more effective or professional.

I have enjoyed the debate very much. It was passionate and reminded me of the days when I first came to this House when we had people like John Kelly, a more youthful Deputy Michael D. Higgins, the late Brian Lenihan and others. One actually came to the House to get the flavour of a debate because it could not be got on a monitor. This is because there was much passionate, witty, direct, constructive and wonderful commentary. The Deputies had a substantive understanding of their subject, which was evident in this debate as well. We would like to see more of this in Dáil Éireann. I think Deputy Gilmore entered the Dáil at the same time as I did in 1987.

I came a little later than the Minister.

Those days probably represented the end of an era, but it was great to be there to see the kind of interchange that took place.

I am happy to be here on the conclusion of the Second Stage debate on the Local Government Bill 2003, which is a further step in the ongoing programme of local government renewal. The wide-ranging contributions and the number of Members who have spoken on this subject reflect the importance of local government in society. It strikes me forcibly how wide the sphere of local government is in its impact on the everyday lives of people.

Among the range of issues referred to during the debate were funding, customer service, staffing, roads, planning, housing, waste management, local authority charges, structures, functions, boundaries, the place of the community sector within the system, the need to enhance the role of locally-elected members and the relationships that exist and will exist between the Oireachtas and local government. Also mentioned were the substantive provisions in the Bill, namely, those associated with the dual mandate and the directly-elected cathaoirligh. In many ways, these issues capture much of the essence of local government today. It is important in sustaining economic and social development, both locally and nationally.

I am encouraged to see that Members of the House have shown themselves to be strong advocates of the local government system, as always. The system truly benefits from their commitment and diversity of views on various issues. It is undoubted that such interest will continue to be displayed vigorously long after the ending of the dual mandate. In particular, it strikes me that while the various political parties may differ in their approaches to the local government system, we are not too far removed in terms of our ultimate goals. In the years ahead, I hope it will be possible to build on what is a shared commitment to ensure a vibrant and relevant local government system as a central focus for local communities.

In my role as Minister for the Environment and Local Government I am acutely conscious that stewardship of the local government system falls to me. It is in this context that I have listened carefully to the views put forward by the various Members in the debate. Let us consider some of the points that have been raised. There has been much criticism that the Bill does not effect the comprehensive reform of local government. Although I have made my position clear, I must reiterate it in response to these comments.

This is a short Bill. It is not a comprehensive overhaul of stewardship of the local government system and I have never tried to mislead anyone in that respect. We are all agreed on that. However, the abolition of the dual mandate is an essential element of a wider reform package and it will expand the political representative base throughout the country. It will have benefits for the national Parliament and local government and will provide the freedom and focus for each to concentrate on the role most appropriate to it. There is no doubt that the removal of the dual mandate will benefit both Houses of the Oireachtas in terms of ordering their business—

We will lose the experience.

Many Members on both sides of the House would like to see the House sit in plenary session more often. One of the tragedies of our structures is that the public and the media – even though they should know better – do not give credence to the committee system. I recall that in my early days in the House the media were screaming about why we could not have a proper committee system in our parliament. Now that we have it they will not cover it. That is very wrong for politicians because many non-Ministers get an opportunity to be front-line people in terms of their activities in committee and to contribute as much to the benefit of the Oireachtas and the people of this country as any Minister ever does in a plenary session. It is unfortunate—

What about the European charter for local government?

We are implementing that. Europe itself has now abandoned the dual mandate of membership of the European Parliament and of one's national parliament. That comes into effect from 2004. As all Deputies know, it will affect us not at the 2004 European election but before the general election, which will be in the middle of the next European Parliament. I expect there may no longer be anybody holding that dual mandate from 2004, but it is effectively gone, as was agreed in the European Parliament. Europe equally recognises that, with the demands of a modern parliamentary system, it is simply not possible to try to be a member of both local government and national government.

If we are honest, we must also recognise the ever-increasing demands upon Members at both local and national level and that these trends can only intensify in the years ahead, to the point where, with the best will in the world it will be nigh impossible, if it is not so already, to satisfactorily carry out both roles on a simultaneous basis. Some Members have spoken in that regard in the course of this debate in a very honest and open way.

We are also providing opportunity for more people, particularly young people and, I sincerely hope, more women to come into politics. It is not something that can be engineered in a simplistic way but I know from my own experience that there are women out there who will come into political life and serve in the wider public sphere if they get encouragement to do so. It is very difficult—

Senator Mary O'Rourke for the Dáil.

She is a very good politician locally. It is—

The Minister will not be saying this if a woman takes his seat in Waterford.

It is very difficult to enter the local government system and augment the available stock of politicians willing to give their time to serve their communities at local level. We would all aspire to that. As I have already said, most of us share similar objectives even though the approach is different.

I want to pick up on something Deputy Broughan was saying because I fundamentally agree with him. Almost every speaker in the House said he or she wants local government strengthened, more resources to be available under the control of the local government system and more autonomy at local government level. I subscribe to all of that. It was very interesting that Deputy Broughan used Denmark as an example. As he would probably know, I know the country very well. The reason local government systems work in these countries is that the amount of local taxation is very substantial. All of those countries have higher central personal taxation than we do.

We can go down that road and I would welcome it. Deputy Broughan has said he wanted to see households in this country paying €5,000 or €6,000 per year in taxes into their local government system. There is no doubt that better services can be provided then in terms of local swimming pools, community facilities and local policing and that all sorts of wonderful things can happen—

I did not hear Deputy Broughan saying that.

That is what they are paying in Denmark. Not alone have they had metered water charges there for many years but they are now charging for waste water as well, so consumers are hit on the double. That is a new tax that has been brought in—

I am told that is in the pipeline for us also.

I am saying to Deputies that we should be honest. I agree with the principles expressed in terms of local government but let us be collectively honest about what we are actually saying. If we want to give real authority to local government then, as everybody has said, in fairness, local government needs control of its own local taxation system. I look forward to the support that may be available to me in the years ahead if I begin to look at those areas because the tax base in this country is clearly too narrow.

What about a better redistribution of national taxes?

On the question of arrangements for the election of county and city cathaoirligh, there was a marked lack of enthusiasm for this proposal the last time it was before the House. The main Opposition parties voted against the very provision they now seek to retain. Collective agreement on this issue is therefore somewhat elusive at present even though the Deputies' colleagues on county councils and other representative bodies have lobbied extremely hard to ensure that directly elected mayors are not part of the system.

It is not an ideological view. It is also not the case that I removed this proposal because the Fianna Fáil Party was afraid to go out and contest mayoral elections. I very strongly believe that people elected to local government should have the absolute right to choose their leader from among their own number of democratically elected people, just as we do in this parliament. We do not have a presidential-style system of election á la the United States. I do not believe elected councillors should have no opportunity in the lifetime of their service to become the mayor or cathaoirleach of their city or county. I just do not accept it. People have an inalienable right—

How did the Minister Deputy Dempsey get it so wrong?

I am the Minister at the moment and am giving my view. It is a view strongly held by all the political parties. Some views were expressed to me today by Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, so maybe Sinn Féin has taken a different view on this, but to my knowledge, my view has been more strongly held. I have not done it just in response to some pressure put on me.

What do the Progressive Democrats want?

However, in deference to people with differing views, I do not rule out changes to the current statutory role and position of the cathoirleach. That is an important issue that has been mentioned across the House. I have listened carefully to all Deputies, and not just in this debate. I agree that this State put enormous resources into the local government system in recent years to produce a better local government system. It was not done for the self-aggrandisement of local government officials. It was done to improve local services and efficiencies. There seems to be serious questions as to what happened on the productivity side in terms of the delivery, and I am looking very seriously at that—

The Minister has a great deal to look at.

There are pressures on local representatives and politicians to deliver. I absolutely agree that there must be a corresponding relationship between a massive increase in resources from the officials and delivery at the other side, and I intend to get to the bottom of this. I, as a politician, accept that this is part and parcel of what we are trying to deliver, and I look forward to bringing my views and conclusions on that to this House in the not too distant future, I hope in the context of an overall review—

There is no good in the Minister telling us this, he needs to tell the local government officials.

I think they know my views. I have expressed them to many of them at this stage. For the moment, ending the dual mandate will itself bring about substantial change, while the current system of electing cathaoirligh for the newly elected councils from among their number will remain in place in 2004. The same model operates for the election of the Taoiseach.

This Bill is therefore a starting point for me in continuing the programming of local government renewal, adding vigour and vibrancy to the changes being implemented in recent years and providing a platform from which to move forward. I flagged my intention to intensify the renewal programme and to develop more efficient and effective local government with strong local roots and strengthened democratic input. Along the way we can look further at various issues which Members have raised in the context of further reform.

I see that time is running out fast. A review of SPCs is being conducted by the Institute of Public Administration and all local authorities, including colleagues of the Deputies, are feeding into this process, as well as all of the different stake holders. I look forward in the not too distant future to having that review before me to see exactly what way it will shape up with regard to the role of councillors and directors of services.

Before concluding, I acknowledge that many Members of both Houses have given years of dedicated service at both local and national level and that their departure from local government will, for most, be tinged with sadness and regret for leaving fellow councillors and friends and for the satisfaction – perhaps at times the frustration – and enjoyment which came with working within the local government system.

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate for their interest and welcome the diversity of views and valuable inputs. I have enjoyed hearing the various views outlined which were often expressed in a very passionate way. I have gained a useful insight into contemporary parliamentary thinking on local government. While some contributions were outside the limited scope of this Bill, overall they provided much food for thought in considering and planning for the further development of local government in this country. On that positive note, I commend the Bill to the House.

On a point of order, will the Minister refer this Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality in order to appease his backbenchers?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Question put.

Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Boyle, Dan.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Ferris, Martin.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.

Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGrath, Finian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Eoin.Sargent, Trevor.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael. Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Blaney, Niall.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Connaughton, Paul.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Deasy, John.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Fox, Mildred.Gilmore, Eamon.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Padraic.McGrath, Paul.

McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share