I am sharing time with Deputy Nolan.
Local Government Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I preface my remarks by saying that I am disappointed Deputy Ring is not here as I know he has a keen interest in this legislation.
He has already spoken on this Bill.
I know, but it might do him no harm to listen to some of the comments of others.
He cannot be here all the time.
During the Order of Business this morning, the Tánaiste mentioned that one of the aspects of this Bill that has exercised the minds of many Deputies is the dual mandate. Many of us have based our political careers and established our reputations on the work we have done as local representatives. I have built my electoral base on the work I have done since I was elected to South Dublin County Council for the first time in 1999. Many of my colleagues have grave concerns about the abolition of the dual mandate and I admit that I have reservations about it. Most constituents who approach me with queries do not care whether the issues they are raising are of local or national significance. They do not care whether the matters relate to a local authority, a Department or the Government, as long as they receive an answer. Most issues that are referred to me pertain to local government matters. It is difficult to walk away from one's political base and the issues which make up most of one's work, and one must be brave to do so.
We need to examine the work of local authorities in a realistic manner. In the short time I have spent on South Dublin County Council, the workload has varied enormously. Councillors now receive recognition of their work in the form of pay, but the money involved is small compared to the volume of work, which is growing rapidly. The issue of local representation will have to be reviewed as we go forward. While this Bill abolishes the dual mandate, future legislation will have to assist those who give a great deal of their time to serve on local authorities. It is no longer satisfactory to turn up for short periods of time as the work is becoming quite complex and detailed. Locally elected representatives have a duty of care in relation to the people they represent. I can only speak for my local authority, but there seems to be more and more briefing meetings. With the regular monthly council meetings, there are two area meetings each month as well as SPC meetings and gatherings of the IAP monitoring committee.
Certain special projects also need to be dealt with from time to time. The development of a swimming pool in Clondalkin, which involves design and planning processes, will cost about €9 million or €10 million. The project has involved a number of additional meetings. It is planned to develop between 8,000 and 10,000 housing units in the strategic development zone in the Adamstown area, near Lucan, in the coming years. There are numerous special meetings in relation to the project.
If one is to take on such a workload honestly, by giving the commitment that is involved to do one's job well, it is hard to find enough time to be a Member of this House and a member of a local authority at the same time. I am well aware that these issues apply to those who are not members of the Oireachtas. I regret, however, that my work performance on South Dublin County Council is not the same this year as it was last year, before I was elected to this House. I could not have sustained such a local authority workload as this House sits for three days each week, often at the same time as many of our meetings. I regret that as I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on the council. I have grave apprehensions about giving it up because I know that the people who will knock on my constituency office door on Monday or Friday mornings, in particular, will raise issues that pertain, by and large, to South Dublin County Council matters.
It is with great reluctance that I support the abolition of the dual mandate. I am doing so, however, in the clear knowledge that it is for the better good, something I did not always believe to be the case. I opposed this measure for selfish reasons when I considered it first because I had the same political concerns as others. I feel vulnerable and exposed by not being a member of a local authority which, for many elected representatives, is the local centre of activity because it is where things happen on the ground every day. I feel the sense of vulnerability that exists among those who are walking away from the centre of activity.
Before I share time with my colleague, Deputy Nolan, I would like to point out that this Bill has changed somewhat from the version that was brought to us originally. I compliment the Minister, Deputy Cullen, for introducing such changes, having listened to his party colleagues during a meeting that was not among the more pleasant he has attended. Members of the Minister's party were extremely concerned to ensure that they would still have real access to their local authorities so that they would be able to keep in touch with events in their local areas. The Minister took such concerns on board in the course of a heated and emotional meeting. People spoke in emotional terms about the big change that will have to be made by some members of my party and the House, who have spent in excess of 20 years on local authorities.
I express my appreciation for the Minister, who took our concerns on board. Access to infor mation, which has now been guaranteed as a consequence of changes to this Bill and further regulation, was the primary concern that was mentioned. While I freely admit that such access is not the same as attending meetings and influencing decisions, it is a fundamental and important change for Members of this House. It is imperative that we know what is happening locally so that we can serve the needs of constituents who telephone, write, e-mail and call to us each day. I compliment and thank the Minister for taking on board the comments that were made to him brutally during a heated and emotional discussion. If we are to give up our council seats, we must continue to be able to meet the demands and needs of the people we represent.
The changes and the amendments which the Minister has made and the regulations to follow will assist us in doing this.
I commend the Minister for bringing forward this Bill. It is another step in the continuing development of local government since its establishment in 1898. We celebrated the centenary of local government two years ago. Much has changed in that time and particularly in the last ten or 15 years. It is not possible for any individual to satisfactorily carry out both the role of national representative and local authority member and if there was nothing else in this Bill, the Minister has done something in that regard.
The Bill has not been popular within certain sections of both Houses of the Oireachtas but I am a supporter of the abolition of the dual mandate. Oireachtas Members will suffer a little because we will not also be local authority members but if proper access and structures are put in place by the Minister to ensure access for us on an ongoing basis to local authorities and their various departments, some of the effect of the legislation could be diluted.
I have been a member of local authorities since 1974 and I have seen significant changes. Individuals who were members of county councils at the time of the abolition of house rates in 1977 say they saw a serious decrease in the effectiveness of their role as county councillors following that abolition. I was not a county council member at that stage.
I congratulate the Minister for his proposal to set up a process to examine the area of local authority funding. Unless county councils and local authorities are given the right to raise finance they will not be as effective in the area of spending. It is like the old cliché which says that anything that comes handy is given away too handy. Currently 95% of local authority funding comes from central government and a large proportion of that is already earmarked by central government and the Department of the Environment and Local Government before it reaches local authorities.
I do not see any difficulty in the proposal for the changing of previous legislation for the direct election of mayors. We in this House elect our own Taoiseach and Ceann Comhairle. I do not think this proposal will make any great change because town councils will continue to elect their cathaoirleach or mayor as the case may be.
The Bill is another step in the process of improving local government. While its main effect will be to end the dual mandate and amend the previous legislation for directly-elected mayors, it is an opportunity for the Minister to examine some of the shortcomings that exist in local government. It is important to separate the role of local government and the national Parliament. Every fair-minded Member of this House will acknowledge that it is becoming more difficult to carry out the role of local authority member and also be an effective Member of these Houses.
Like Deputy Curran I have found that my effectiveness as a local authority member has not been as great as I would like it to be. When I step down as a local authority member and somebody else takes my seat, his or her commitment and resolve and ability to work for the people in Carlow will be far greater than mine because I must spend a greater amount of time in Dublin.
The ending of the dual mandate has been supported by a broad range of interests over many years. As far back as 1990, the Barrington report stated that the joint membership between local government and national Parliament should cease. Representative organisations such as the General Council of County Councils have lobbied over the years for the abolition of the dual mandate and organisations such as the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and the National Youth Council of Ireland have also supported this decision.
The Council for the Status of Women has stated that the ending of the dual mandate would open up greater opportunities for women to enter local politics and, through that, to national politics. At present, less than 17% of local authority members are women. This Bill is another step on the road to improving local democracy.
The Local Government Act 1999 debarred Ministers of State from becoming members of local authorities. The Local Government Act 1994 disqualified the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and Cathaoirleach of the Seanad from membership of local authorities and debarred Members of the Oireachtas from becoming chair or vice-chair of local authorities after the 1999 local elections. In that regard I do not see any merit in the case which Deputy Ring is proposing to take to the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of this Bill. I am sure the Minister had checked out that possibility well before he brought this legislation to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In the White Paper entitled Better Local Government, published in 1996, it was recommended that further actions should be taken regarding membership of local authorities post the 1999 elections. It is also worthy of note that the ending of the dual mandate is supported by all the major political parties in this House. In the previous Dáil the Opposition parties supported this aspect and I presume they will be consistent and support the Minister in this case also.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for Members of the Oireachtas to remain efficient members of a local authority when one considers the number of committees and sub-committees that now form part of local council structures. The number of committees of which councillors are now obliged to be members has increased substantially over the past ten years. There are now additional groups such as county enterprise boards, Leader groups, local partnerships, county development boards and special policy committees. There are local voluntary groups of which county councillors are expected to be a part.
Local government in Ireland celebrated its centenary in 1998 and has played a pivotal role in the development of Irish society. I would like to see this role enhanced and improved and this Bill is another step on the way. The Minister has a genuine and sincere commitment to local government and I know this will not be the end of the legislative process which he wants to put in place to ensure strong, vibrant local government.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Shortall. This month is the anniversary of my 20 years on the local authority. I was initially co-opted onto Dublin County Council in 1983. Over that period I have derived immense satisfaction and experience from carrying out my duties over such a diverse range of areas. Apart altogether from providing a service to my constituents, which I always regarded as my priority, the county council was a great training ground for me.
On a point or order, the Fianna Fáil Deputies were most vociferous outside the House regarding this Bill and there is not one of them present. I ask for a quorum to be called.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
As I stated before we were interrupted, apart from providing a service to my constituents, which I always believed was my first priority, the county council was a great training ground for people aspiring to higher public office, whether as a Senator or TD. I can honestly say that without my experience and exposure to local authority work I would not have been elected to Dáil Éireann. The same goes for the vast majority of Members in this House. Having said that, I have no great difficulty with the ending of the dual mandate. The reality is that increased demands on Members of the Oireachtas, both in terms of deputations, committee work and scrutiny of European legislation, which will be an ever-increasing requirement in the future, will make simultaneous membership unrealistic.
The ending of the dual mandate is the main measure in the Bill. The other significant element is the discontinuance of arrangements already enacted in the Local Government Act 2001 for the introduction of directly elected mayors or cathaoirligh of local authorities throughout the country. What is the reason for this about turn? When the Local Government Act 2001 was passed, which provided for the direct elections, Fianna Fáil were considerably higher in the opinions polls. They could do nothing wrong. The Taoiseach was perceived to be able to walk on water. Fianna Fáil believed its nominees throughout the country could be elected mayor or cathaoirleach in virtually every local authority. That situation has changed, and changed drastically. This is the reason Fianna Fáil has changed its policy on directly elected mayors or cathaoirligh. It is no wonder people are cynical about politics and politicians, particularly as the previous Minister took such great pride in putting forward the benefits to be gained from directly electing mayors.
When the 2002 Act was originally introduced it was argued that the provisions for direct elections were necessary to strengthen the elected side of local government in light of the discussions to end the dual mandate. Now the dual mandate is going and the counter balancing measure is also being scrapped. From my experience, I can confidently say that arising from this further broken promise by the Government, county managers throughout the country will now be literally able to do what they like. Whether we like to admit it or not, by and large, it was the Oireachtas Members who were prepared to stand up to county managers and ask them to be accountable for their actions.
Hear, hear.
I hope the new generation of councillors who will come on stream arising from the co-options and local elections next year will be prepared to put in place the structures to ensure that everyone who is interested in public life will be able to go forward for elections from a level playing pitch. When I was a member of the county council I was not allowed time off to fulfil that duty. I had to try to slip out when my superior officer was not looking. I had to get some of my colleagues to cover for me so that I could slip down to the local authority to work on behalf of my constituents. That is the type of system that allows bureaucrats to look down their noses at elected members of local authorities. Major changes must take place in this regard. We must acknowledge the role and significance of local authorities but we must also give them the power and responsibility to enforce legislation at local level.
Up to 70% of my work load was related to the local authority and, when not on the council, a substantial amount of this work will continue. Accordingly, it is essential, if Oireachtas Members are to discharge their duties as public representatives, that they are entitled to full information about the activities of local authorities. The Bill enables the Minister to issue guidelines as to the manner in which local authorities will conduct their dealings with Oireachtas Members. This is not sufficient. I am calling on the Minister to publish these guidelines prior to Committee Stage of the Bill. I would have thought the Minister would have outlined the guidelines in his Second Stage speech so that we would be able to critically analyse them to see whether they go far enough to ensure the people we represent will get a fair hearing. The guidelines should be available for Committee Stage so that we will know the position and be able to table amendments. The guidelines should be given statutory effect.
They will.
I am not suggesting that Members of the Oireachtas should take on the responsibilities of local councillors. However, major issues are developing on a daily or weekly basis that would be of interest to local TDs and public representatives. There should be a facility to allow Members of the Oireachtas to sit in at council or area committee meetings if they choose to do so. There could be a very important issue which would require the attendance of a TD or Senator. If a TD currently wants to see what is happening he must sit in the public gallery with the general public. A designated area should be allocated to Oireachtas Members other than the public gallery.
The Minister, Deputy Cullen, stated that the Bill should be viewed as another step in the process of local government reform which has been moving progressively forward over a number of years. As I stated earlier, the Bill provides for the rowing back on legislation enacted in the 2001 Act. The reality is that the Government is not prepared to delegate responsibility for decision-making to any meaningful effect to local authorities. We have by far the most centrally controlled form of local government in the EU, and it is getting worse, notwithstanding the hype the Minister might wish to put out.
The past six years of Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats rule have witnessed the serious undermining and erosion of local government. Significant powers have been shifted from democratically elected local authorities to managers and national authorities. This is a retrograde step. We must look to the reform of local government in the future. We must also look at the SPCs, which are an utter disaster. Local community-based representatives are losing enthusiasm in this area and we must look at the reasons for this.
While I look at this Bill as a step in the development of local government, structures must be put in place at local and national level to ensure councillors can carry out their work prop erly. Given the enhanced legislation that is required of this House, we must be given the back-up to do this. How can we be expected to analyse legislation emanating from Europe when a Deputy, secretary and assistant has to carry out the work? It is about time the Government looked at the services it is providing to elected members at local level and the Oireachtas. What is being provided at the moment is an utter scandal and it is about time the Government acknowledged the role of the elected Member.
I thank Deputy Sean Ryan for sharing time with me. The Labour Party opposes this Bill because it believes it is a sham masquerading as local government reform. I do not oppose this Bill along the same lines as backbench Government Deputies that fear the ending of the dual mandate; I oppose this as I believe it will lead to weaker local government. It has been accepted for the past 25 years that local government is ineffective and lacks real teeth. While the Government seeks to end the dual mandate as a means of reforming local government, it will do nothing of the kind. Local government is powerless. Government in this country is centralised to a greater degree than in any other European country. There are no local powers in education, transport or health, services that should be dealt with at local level. While all those powers are centralised and we have a managerial system at local government level, local government will continue to be a joke. Local government is currently on its knees.
We must admit that the people who carry local government at public representative level are, by and large, Deputies and Senators. They are doing this because they are full-time politicians and can pursue the city or county manager on issues that affect their areas. They have the time to do this and get around the obfuscation and evasiveness of many local government officials that give meaningless replies and sometimes refuse to answer questions. Most councillors, particularly those that are councillors only, simply do not have the time to pursue management on issues of accountability. Managers know that the vast majority of councillors do not have the time to pursue them and they can get away with obfuscation and a lack of accountability.
Who is in a position to stand for election to local government when one bears in mind the considerable time, financial and personal demands this places on individuals? What person in a normal job can take off three hours on a Monday morning to attend an SPC or take an entire Thursday afternoon off to attend a local area committee meeting? It is not possible to do this if one is trying to hold down a normal job. We are increasingly seeing that those who stand in council elections are retired, working part-time or not working at all. I am not sure that it is desirable that we continue to build a framework for local government on people that can only give a part-time commitment. All parties came across this in the last local elections in 1999 when looking among their members for people that would make good candidates. Most able people in decent jobs, the kind of people we should be trying to attract to local government, do not have the time to do the job. Why would they do it? It is a blooming thankless job. The hours are dreadful; one can expect calls at all hours of the day and is required to attend four of five meetings in one's constituency each week. What regular person has the time to devote to this?
We need to move far beyond the current position and introduce decent local government reform. There are too many councillors and too many local authorities for this small country. Why can we not operate with five or six decent-sized councils covering the country? There should also be a second tier at town level so that major areas of population have urban district councils to deal with local matters. This would be a starting point. We need large-scale structural reform to reduce the number of councillors and make the position full-time. It is an interesting and important area. The job of councillor is full-time in practically every other European country. It should be possible to make a living and career as a councillor, particularly if we reduce the number of councillors. Why not make it a full-time job and allow people to devote time to working in local government instead of having the mishmash we currently have? If the Government continues with this Bill, it will severely weaken local government because of the calibre of people available to be councillors.
There is an urgent need to reform the areas of responsibility of local government. I am a member of 11 other bodies within my constituency. I am a member of two drugs task forces, two area partnerships, a RAPID implementation committee, an education task force, two community development projects and a number of other groups, task forces and committees. There is a plethora of such organisations and it is difficult to keep track of them. We have such groups because of the weakness of local government. All of the issues dealt with by these bodies, ranging from education to drugs and community development, should come under proper local government. Some people would call these groups quangos and I know there is much concern abut the lack of accountability for the large range of different community groups, task forces and State agencies that have been established in recent years. It is impossible to keep track of them. Local government officials, health board officials and gardaí are increasingly spending their time attending meetings of these bodies, all of which hold monthly meetings. In my case, I have 11 additional monthly meetings to keep track of the community development area, something that should properly be under the remit of local government.
There is a huge lack of representation for the public in the Dublin area. In the case of my con stituency, Dublin North-West, there are seven councillors representing that constituency. In practically every other county outside of Dublin, each constituency has a county council or a city council. In Dublin we do not have such a structure. If we are serious about local government reform we have to look at representation, and at how we can attract high-calibre people to make it a full-time job, reduce the numbers but let us not pretend this will bring about reform. It will do nothing of the kind.
I wish to share time with Deputies Blaney and Healy-Rae.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Government for allowing me time to speak on this Bill despite the fact that I will not be supporting it. I am sorry the Minister will not be present for my contribution.
The Government Deputies are not present, not to mention the Minister.
Deputies opposite have short memories.
I object to this Bill and the Government's intention to abolish the dual mandate on a couple of grounds. First and foremost it takes away my right to stand for election. It takes away the right of the voters to democratically elect me or reject me, as they see fit, or any other Member of the Oireachtas as a representative of their local community. It limits their choice of candidates, it discriminates against me, because of my job, and it implies that I am not a suitable person to represent my local community in a particular local forum.
In the 20th amendment to the Constitution the people passed an amendment dealing with local government. Article 28A of the Constitution states:
The State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, in exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law and in promoting by its initiatives the interests of such communities.
At the time this amendment was passed, the democratic representation of local communities on local authorities clearly included Oireachtas Members. This Bill, if passed, will redefine the term "democratic representation", mentioned in Article 28A of the Constitution. It is no longer the concept that the people passed when voting on that referendum, if this Bill is passed.
This Bill limits the democratic representation of local communities on local authorities compared to what now exists. Time after time Oireachtas Members have been returned as local authority members by the public to represent them. If the dual mandate system is so bad why do the people re-elect us? I believe the decision should be left with the people. This Bill tells me as an Oireachtas Member that I should have no role in the promotion of initiatives and interests of my local community at county council level and I object to that.
The Minister has proposed a number of measures to ensure Oireachtas Members will enjoy access to the local authority, after the abolition of the dual mandate. As far as I am concerned these measures are of no help. At present Oireachtas Members who are not members of county councils have a certain degree of access to the county council, but this does not come close to substituting as a member of a local authority.
My constituency includes Wicklow and east Carlow. Therefore, I have dealings with both Wicklow County Council, of which I am a member, and Carlow County Council, of which I am not a member. With all due respect to Carlow County Council, there is no comparison between my relationship with it and with Wicklow County Council. As a Member of the Oireachtas I am obviously entitled to make representations to Carlow County Council, but unfortunately this is and will continue to be a glorified pen pushing operation, similar to the measures being proposed by the Minister. There is no substitute for being a member of the local authority. No proposal will replace the ability to raise, and to vote on, local issues.
The subject of the dual mandate has had its fair share of debate during the past two years. Just over two years ago the Local Government Act was passed and during that period the dual mandate section of the Bill was controversially dropped. As one of the Independents who then supported the minority Government I voiced my opposition to the Taoiseach at that time as to why I felt the abolition of the dual mandate was wrong. As a result the measure was dropped only to re-emerge now.
The debate at that time centred on the fact that somehow the local government system is creaking because it is full of Oireachtas Members. My local authority meets on average six hours per month, less time per week than "Coronation Street". I would like to know how the banning of Oireachtas Members from participating in six hours of debate every month will reform local government? It will not reform local government.
The idea of reforming the Dáil has also been suggested. I support that suggestion. We should reform the Dáil, sit for more days per week, sit for longer sessions, take a shorter summer recess and then, and only then, could we point the finger at the dual mandate and tackle it, at that stage, if it needs tackling.
I have also heard charges that Oireachtas Members are double jobbing. Almost every member of a local authority is double jobbing. Most local authority members are employed in other sectors. Surely that is the purpose of serving local people and being in touch with people. Different employment sectors bring diversity to local government and highlight the needs of local people whom we work alongside in our daily lives. Otherwise, we simply become a forum of civil servants who dictate to the people who elect us.
As a citizen of this State it is my fundamental and personal right under Article 40 of the Constitution to be held equal before the law. If this Bill is passed, I am unequal. I can be a doctor, solicitor, teacher, farmer or unemployed person and run for my local authority, but God forbid that I should be a Member of the Oireachtas. I am asking that the Government request the President to test the constitutionality of this Bill, as I believe my constitutional rights are being affected.
Nobody has given me a credible reason as to why I am unsuitable to serve as a county councillor. I was elected in 1999 to represent my local community because the public deemed me the best person for the job. I am willing to go forward again for election as an Independent and as a young woman but I am being denied this right.
Most of the main political parties have said they are opposed to the dual mandate and they are entitled to hold that view. I put it to them that if they feel the system is inappropriate why wait to be forced off the county councils? Why not lead by example and make it a party policy to refuse to run sitting Oireachtas Members in the 2004 elections? Why not have the courage of their convictions and make a cross-party agreement, if that is how they feel? They should not force smaller parties and Independents to do likewise.
I am proud to be a member of my local authority and I am also proud to be a Member of the Dáil. People in Ireland are lucky in that they enjoy access to their national politicians. That is not the case in most other countries where politicians and representatives are surrounded by handlers and minders of all kinds. If this Bill is passed, we are changing yet another way of life in Ireland. While the outcome of the Bill in this House is obvious, I hope on another day, in another forum, it will be thrown out.
On a point of order, Government backbenchers had much to say about this measure outside this House. The least they can do is be in the Chamber while we are debating the Bill. I call for a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I have served as a member of Kerry County Council for 30 years and a few months. I am now nearing completion of the first year of my second term as a TD for my constituency in south and south-west Kerry. I have worked tirelessly for my constituency as a councillor and TD. I do not consider this to be double-jobbing. I consider it a way to serve my constituents to the very best of my ability. If I could not represent my constituency at local level I would lose touch with the people. The end of the dual mandate is unconstitutional. As I said on Kerry Radio, I agree with Deputy Ring that this Bill must and will be challenged. I could be a doctor and a TD, a barrister and a TD, but I cannot be a county councillor and a TD. This is absolutely unbelievable.
The implementation of the Local Government Bill 2003 and the ending of the dual mandate is not in the public interest. Power and authority should not be taken out of the hands of the people, but this is what will happen if the dual mandate is ended. This system has been in place for more than 80 years and has served the nation well. How can we serve the people, as we were elected to do, if we are unable to serve on local authorities. It is ridiculous that Members of the Oireachtas will be cut off from their local authority. This Bill does not state adequately how I as a Member of the Oireachtas will be able to continue to represent my constituents on local matters if the dual mandate is abolished.
Instead of weakening local authorities, the Government should strengthen them. At present TDs are not paid as county councillors. Does the Government realise the effect the ending of the dual mandate will have on the Exchequer in this era of financial cuts in every Department? This does not make economic sense when cuts are being made in the health service and people have to be treated on trolleys because of the shortage of hospital beds, when third level students must worry about the shortage of accommodation when they should be putting their minds to their studies instead. If the Minister for Education and Science reintroduces third level education fees, this finance would be put to good use to help the farming community and fishermen who are currently going through a terrible time. It could be used to provide better treatment for cancer patients, some of whom are currently receiving treatment one might expect in some Third World countries and some of whom must travel great distances to receive treatment that lasts only ten minutes instead of having facilities nearer to home.
I would like the backbenchers who are missing from their seats to keep foremost in their minds, now that it is proposed to abolish the dual mandate, that the four Independents served the last Government for five solid years. I am glad the Minister is in the Chamber because I want to tell him that the record will show that we never missed a single vote in this House to keep that Government in place during that five years. I further say that at that time we got a firm commitment from the Taoiseach of the day that the question of abolishing the dual mandate had been put to sleep for good. For some unknown reason, whether it was to be better than the previous Minister, Deputy Dempsey, the current Minister has reintroduced it, despite the commitment that it would never again surface during our time in this House.
It is ironic that the Tánaiste, who tries to come across to the people as prudent with the public finances, wants to bring in this Bill which will, without a doubt, put a further burden on the public finances. It is my view that the Progressive Democrats feel so threatened by the Independents that they insisted on adding the question of the dual mandate to this Bill. I pose one question to them and to everybody in the House today: is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Are the Tánaiste and her Progressive Democrats colleagues ready to face the people and justify further demands on the Exchequer as a result of the introduction of this Bill instead of solving issues such as the huge rise in the cost of motor and business insurance where jobs are being lost purely because of the huge increase in premiums?
It is a matter of trust. If the people do not want their TDs elected as local authority councillors they will not vote for them. Local elections are due to take place in 2004. Let the people decide by using their votes whether they want the dual mandate. Do not take away the rights of the people to have their say. What is the Government afraid of? Why not let the people decide? Does the Government think they are not intelligent enough to make a decision on such an important matter? Is it afraid to listen to the people? I have always listened to my constituents so that I can serve them to the best of my ability and I will fight for their right to decide on constitutional matters. I say trust the people, let them speak on this constitutional matter and let us not forget that we are all answerable to them. All the parties around me, Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, are now down on the Independents. They do not want us because they will have their backs to the wall at the next local election and at every general election. We stand on our record in this House. The four of us kept a famous Government, a better Government than the present one, on its feet for five years.
I thank the Government for allowing me time to speak. I too am opposed to the Bill. I am extremely disappointed by its contents, particularly in relation to the abolition of the dual mandate. It is totally undemocratic and a direct hit at Independent Deputies, not to mention the loss to the local government system.
It is fairly well known why I am on this side of the House, but let me remind those who do not know. It is due mainly to the lies, cover up and conspiracy of the former Deputy O'Malley who would never have entered the doors of this House were it not for my late uncle who was then a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and got him elected on the day. Former Deputy O'Malley, together with the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, who had a fear of being disowned, collectively used the Arms Trial as a means of ejecting my late uncle, among others, from the Fianna Fáil organisation during the Troubles in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That is why I am an Independent and a member of an organisation known locally as Independent Fianna Fáil. While the organisation in Donegal has four members on Donegal County Council, I am not directly affected. However, I understand the plight of single Independent candidates who will have no links to the local authority when this legislation is passed and, as a result, will no longer be able to retain a Dáil seat.
I call a quorum. Given that so many Fianna Fáil members were so vociferous about this Bill on the plinth and said they had reservations about it and would oppose it, I cannot understand why they are not here. It is unprecedented in my 21 years here that the Government has surrendered speaking time to the Opposition. I am calling a quorum to bring them into the House.
On a point of order, there are 20 Members present in the Chamber. This is time wasting. One of the newest Members is addressing the House. Members of long standing in the Houses of Parliament should have more respect. There is a quorum present.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
We live in a supposedly democratic country. Where is the democracy in this Bill? If a candidate has the ability to represent his or her people on a local authority and in the Houses of the Oireachtas what right has the Government to take away this mandate?
When the four Independent Members who propped up the previous Government stated that the dual mandate should not be abolished but that those holding the dual mandate should get only one salary they were told that such a move was unconstitutional. The Government then did what the four Independent Deputies proposed, even though it was alleged to be unconstitutional. However, I do not have a problem with the present situation.
The abolition of the dual mandate will signal a very sad day for local government. We will be removing vast experience from every local authority. Having Oireachtas Members on county councils is a vital link and provides an inside track to what is available and how things can be achieved by each local authority. That inside track will no longer exist and instead we will have officialdom, dictatorship and a further undermining of the powers of politicians at local government level.
This is a direct hit at Independent Deputies and at the four Members who held up the outgoing Government from this side of the House. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his motives and to leave this vital link with local authorities.
I would like to share my time with Deputies James Breen, Connolly and Cuffe.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I fully support the ending of the dual mandate and I maintained that support in the last Dáil. On one rare occasion I was the sole representative of my political beliefs who walked through the division lobby in support of the Bill which, although emaciated, introduced the directly elected mayors and cathaoirligh of local authorities. That support represented the support of my party. We are now seeing the Government, yet again, doing a U-turn and rubbishing its own proposal.
Nevertheless, I welcome this further U-turn on the dual mandate. The Government has, once again, come a full 360 degrees on this issue. While the ending of the dual mandate returns from the dead the direct election of mayors and cathaoirligh of local authorities is now to get the chop. Only Fianna Fáil could deliver such a performance, in which party political expediency makes a mockery of democracy. With respect to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, he is probably the best man to do it for them.
He has been there and done that.
Indeed he has. To say that the legislation before us has had a checkered history would be a gross understatement. The former Minister's supposedly reforming Local Government Bill was long promised, from the start of the last Dáil in 1997, and only finally emerged in May 2000. It took more than a year before it was published and the Second Stage reached in June 2001. By then, the issue close to the Minister's heart, the ending of the dual mandate, had been shredded. This was not done, as the popular notion was promoted through the media, at the behest of the Independent supporters of the Government but by the Minister's own backbench colleagues. That is where the real pressure came from.
The hot potato of the ending of the dual mandate was dropped and the Local Government Act 2001 proceeded to bring in directly elected mayors and chairmen, which was a welcome proposition. I supported it but it failed to introduce any real reform of local government. Now this Bill turns the tables once more. We are re-introducing the ending of the dual mandate and the directly elected mayors and chairs are out. It is like Lanigan's Ball, he stepped in and I stepped out again, an incredible situation. Is there time for the Government to change its mind again before 2004? It would not surprise me.
I described the passage of the emasculated Bill on the last occasion as a legislative farce, the last act of which was the guillotine. The farce is back, however, for another short run in the Leinster House theatre. The dual mandate proposal is being restored and the direct election of mayors and chairs dumped and we all know why.
It has the strong support of all parties.
It is a political fix to suit those in Fianna Fáil who were unhappy with the ending of the dual mandate. They were infinitely more unhappy, however, with the introduction of directly elected mayors and chairs. It was a balancing act and the Minister has seized the moment.
Carpe Diem is my family motto.
I refute a completely false statement that the Minister made in his speech. He said all political parties were against the direct elections and had lobbied him to that effect. With all respect, that is an absolute falsehood because I can state on behalf of Sinn Féin that I have supported and welcomed the direct election proposal.
I said I had consulted major political parties.
The Minister should check the record because he claimed in his contribution that all parties lobbied him. He should accept that I did not lobby him in that regard and my support for the continuation of directly elected mayors and cathaoirligh continues.
I consulted the General Council of County Councils.
The Minister's efforts seek to deflect attention from the shoddy deal within Fianna Fáil by misrepresenting the position of the other political parties.
Membership of a local authority and membership of the Oireachtas are onerous responsibilities. Elected members should devote their full attention to one or other of these tiers, thereby serving the real interest of the communities that return us. I support the ending of the dual mandate and regret that the Minister is incorporating the amendment to exclude the direct election of mayors and chairs before we even have the opportunity to exercise the scheme through the electoral process.
It is not often the Green Party is in agreement with both Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil but on this occasion we are happy to welcome the Bill and state that it does not go far enough. We believe local government should be given strong powers and be invigorated by directly elected mayors who make decisions on behalf of the people.
Within months of our election as TDs, all Green Party Deputies resigned their local authority seats. We have led the way by example. It is not a bed of roses to lose that strong link to local authorities but it is the right thing to do and we are now free to concentrate on national issues. Our replacements on the local authorities are well equipped to take over and deliver on local issues at that level.
The Barrington report on the reform of local government in Ireland 23 years ago argued that the only real powers at national level should be those of foreign affairs and defence and that local government should be given strong powers in all areas to deliver local services in a clear and accountable way. I am saddened that in the 11 years I spent on a local authority we had neither the financial autonomy nor the power to engage with local issues. The abolition of local rates 25 years ago cut off the life blood of financial support and left local government weakened.
If we look abroad we can see how effective local government can be. I went to Aalborg in northern Denmark and met the local authority there. We met the chairs of the housing, health, education and policing committees. They have real power and responsibility and know their jobs. The chairs of the committees are paid, full-time employees who can deliver.
Deputy Shortall mentioned having to sit on a dozen quangos to get anything done. I am aware of that experience myself. I was on 16 sub-committees of Dublin City Council dealing with everything from crime task forces to health issues to local development. I was sick to the back teeth of that and I want to see local government strengthened and made accountable. I am saddened by the plethora of quangos that has sprung up over the past ten years dealing with everything from housing to drugs.
If the Government gives local government the power it will work. If we do not like those we elected, we can throw them out again. That is what I want to see – strong local government – and it saddens me that the Minister has taken out the reference to directly elected mayors.
If we look at Pascal Maragall in Barcelona and Rudolf Giuliani in New York, the lesson from both models is that strong local government works. In 1999 we celebrated 100 years of local government but what was there to celebrate? In recent years we have stripped it of the powers it should have. We should look at Europe and the United States to see how strong local government can deliver and be accountable. If we give it the power it will attract people with vision and ability who can deliver but who avoid the insipid version we have now.
Some Members complained about the strategic policy committees not working. Those have been the most dynamic bodies in local government in recent years but they must be made to work. There must be good chairs with agendas they can deliver on without getting bogged down about painting double yellow lines in Clontarf. We must put issues on the agenda and work on them. The SPCs could be made to deliver if we could get people of sufficient calibre to lead them.
Local government is an emaciated shadow of the system in other countries. It is toothless, powerless, impoverished and cannot deliver. Abolishing the dual mandate is a step in the right direction but we must move beyond that and give real power to local government. If we want to get more gardaí on the beat in a part of the city, we could put a few cent on to the rates or use financial accountability and autonomy to make it happen. Currently we cannot even move a bus stop without going to the Minister or his representative. Local government deserves better and should be given the opportunity to make decisions and deliver on them.
We should look at what Ken Livingstone is doing in London. He does not have much power but he is using the power he has effectively to introduce congestion charges. If we in Dublin were to introduce a congestion charge, we would have to go to 20 different agencies that deal with transportation, get the DTO's opinion, the Minister's opinion and wait 20 years for something to happen. The Minister should go further.
I will do so.
He should strengthen local government financially and in terms of the powers available to it. I am disappointed he does not have the bottle to proceed with directly elected mayors, which would be a good thing. It would help to provide local power to deal with local issues.
From my experience I have seen Deputies run from the Dáil to local government meetings where they were not on top of the agenda at local level. It is, therefore, a good thing to have a separation between local and national politics. It will act as a start in reinvigorating local government and I welcome it.
The Taoiseach and the Government will live to regret the abolition of the dual mandate. Different Members of the House, both Ministers and Deputies, have given sterling service to their local authorities and the national Parliament. The Government should, therefore, withdraw this legislation, which appears to be the initiative of the minor partners in the Government, the Progressive Democrats. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog. We are all aware of the deep concerns expressed by Fianna Fáil backbenchers. I call on the President to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.
The Bill is an attack on our democratic institutions and represents a deliberate attempt to get rid of the Independent Deputies. It is also an attempt by the major party in the Government to secure an elusive overall majority at the next general election. My message to the House is that Independent Deputies are here to stay. The Minister may shake his head, but I will be here.
I was not indicating my disagreement with the Deputy, I was indicating to him that he should return to the fold.
The Minister's party will take back the Deputy. It has taken back worse.
As a member of a local authority for the past 18 years, I will be sad to leave, but, like many other Members of the House, I will not leave by choice. I will be drummed out by the Government and the Minister.
The Deputy will have the choice to serve at local or national level.
The Minister is talking nonsense.
I denied Fianna Fáil its third seat in the Clare constituency at the last general election and I rocked the party to its foundations when I headed the poll as an Independent. The Minister decided not to proceed with directly elected mayors because he knew people like me would take out Fianna Fáil and him. That is what I did.
The proposed reform is supported by all the representative bodies at local government level.
If the Taoiseach would not listen to his backbenchers I cannot expect him to listen to me. The Government backbenchers are against the abolition of the dual mandate. I understand some have provided funding to Deputy Ring to enable him to take a constitutional challenge.
I could not find any of them.
As a former member of the Minister's party, I call on the Government backbenchers to vote with us against the abolition of the dual mandate. It is a step in the wrong direction. It will see the end of the Taoiseach's leadership of Fianna Fáil because his backbenchers will get him following their unhappiness and dissatisfaction with this measure.
My good friend, Deputy Devins, is sitting beside the Minister. He has served loyally on a local authority. Like me, he does not want to leave it, but unfortunately he is caught by his party Whip and will be made to vote against his will.
He will not vote against his will.
I am not picking on Deputy Devins, but he and several of his colleagues will have to vote against their will. One of the values of being an Independent Deputy is not being tied to a Whip.
I will not vote against my will.
This Bill provides for the most significant change in local government representation since the State was founded. It effectively separates local government from the national Parliament while it streamlines the role of local representatives and Dáil Deputies, with the Deputies continuing to play a local representational role with access to local authority meetings and council officials. In effect, they will have a hotline to the council. This link between the Deputy and the local community will be established on a statutory basis by imposing a statutory obligation on the authority to deal with the Deputy. I have never encountered anything other than courtesy, openness and readiness by the officials in Cavan County Council and Monaghan County Council in extending their total co-operation to me, for which I am grateful.
The workload of local representatives has increased enormously in recent years in areas such as planning, infrastructure and environmental services. It is becoming increasingly difficult to serve two masters. It reminds me of the seanfhocal, "Ní thig leis an gobadán an dá thrá a fhreastal." I am convinced that no one person can adequately or satisfactorily exercise the roles of local and national representative simultaneously. The Dáil representative is required to keep in contact with his constituents and is not entirely removed from local matters, which are dealt with through his constituency office and clinics.
Apart from the separation of the roles of local and national representatives, the Bill makes no reference to the future reform of local government, the empowerment of local authorities, the funding of local government, improving service delivery and making use of new technologies. In addition, the future funding of local authorities is not addressed, which is a cause for concern. Local authorities comprising virtually full-time specialist councillors should receive adequate funding to ensure delivery of their various services.
Many Oireachtas Members of local authorities are required to serve not only the council and its various committees, but also the newly created strategic policy committees, the vocational education committees, county development groups, health boards and Leader groups, in addition to the Oireachtas committees, all-party committees and other fora. Such a workload is excessive for any one individual. The complexity of these responsibilities requires enormous sacrifice and superhuman commitment.
I regret that the provision allowing for directly elected mayors is to be abolished. Direct election would have given mayors a five year mandate to implement a programme during the council's term. Its abolition will only serve to diminish local authorities. There are several international examples of where elected mayors can be very effective.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Johnny Brady and Deputy Devins.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I have a vested interest in this Bill in that I have been an alderman on Dublin City Council since 1985 and I was Lord Mayor of Dublin in 1989-90. However, on balance, I support the provisions of the Bill. I have listened with an open mind to what the Minster and his predecessor have said on the question of abolishing the dual mandate. As a Fianna Fáil backbencher, I have not made any public announcements on the proposal from the plinth of the House.
I supported the legislation which made provision for the direct election of a chairperson or mayor of a local authority. A person directly elected to this position would be a major catalyst for change in the local government system in that he or she could initiative major changes and reform in the interest of all citizens. Sadly, this view was too idealistic. It put the cart before the horse as the measure was not accompanied by any real local government reform. It meant that the new mayor or chairperson would still have no real power, with the result that the expectations of the electorate could not be met. Indeed, the situation would have been made worse.
Furthermore, councillors who know from experience how local government works were, by and large, vehemently opposed to the concept. I also understand that organisations such as LAMA, the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and the General Council of County Councils opposed the proposal for various reasons. The Minister was obliged to take account of their views.
I welcome the Minister's comments on the funding and reform of local government and I look forward to the publication as soon as possible of the reports he has initiated on these matters.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.