Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 May 2003

Vol. 566 No. 2

Local Government Bill 2003: Report Stage.

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Allen arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 2 is an alternative and amendment No. 3 is related. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 14 to 27.

I set out my objections to this Bill on Second and Committee Stages when we had a fairly detailed debate. I will not refight the war. My party's opposition to the Bill is based on four issues. The first relates to the constitutionality of the Bill. On Committee Stage I requested the Minister to make available the Attorney General's advice on the matter. However, he chose not to do that. There is a reasonable question mark over the Bill's constitutionality. I outlined my fears on Committee Stage and I said it would be a political hanging offence if the Bill was subsequently deemed to be unconstitutional.

There is a precedent for making the Attorney General's advice available. The Taoiseach made it available when there was an issue about the constitutionality of the Shannon stopover. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation and make the legal advice available. I set out on Committee Stage on 17 April the legal advice I received. There is a reasonable fear about the constitutionality of the Bill.

I also oppose the Bill because of the U-turn on the issue of directly-elected mayors. I tabled amendments on Committee Stage which sought to run on a pilot basis elections for directly-elected Lords Mayor in Dublin and Cork. However, the Minister has not been forthcoming in that regard.

As regards the rights of Oireachtas Members, I know the Minister has laid down guidelines. However, I had hoped he would make specific regulations before the Bill was passed to allay the fears of many Members in the House.

The fourth reason I oppose the Bill is that I expected this proposal to be part of a broader package of local government reform. The Minister said on Committee Stage that he would introduce a package of reforms either later this year or early next year. I accept his word on that.

We are discussing these issues against the background of a growing financial crisis in a number of local authorities. Cork County Council fears it will not be able to buy a shovel for some of its maintenance people by July or August. Where will it get the resources to fund ongoing general works? Cork County Council is only one example of what is happening nation-wide. There is a serious financial crisis in local authorities. The Minister is giving powers to managers to make up deficits by imposing charges. He is taking the right to raise charges away from councillors. I fear that managers will impose savage increases next year and the year after to make up deficits. The people will suffer when domestic rates are reintroduced. I said on Second Stage that we are moving back to 1977. This discussion is academic as far as the people are concerned. I oppose the Bill on the grounds I have stated. I hope the Minister accepts my amendment.

I know the Minister was looking for me the last day, but I am here today. I spent that day discussing the Bill and when the Minister left the House, I did not make any comment because he had explained why he had to leave. I was disappointed the Minister and some of his backbench colleagues commented on where I was.

During the debate that day I referred to the General Council of County Councils. As a paid up member of that organisation, I disagree with and am upset by its view. I referred to Mr. Kenny whom I have known for a long time. I am fond of him and I hope I did not cause him any offence. I explained my position to him and he accepted it. I would not offend him because he is only a paid official. It was wrong of the General Council of County Councils to send him out. The chairman of that group should have been sent on behalf of the councillors. Mr. Kenny has done an excellent job and I do not have problems with him. However, I have problems with the General Council of County Councils because it did not consult me to find out my view.

More than 128 Oireachtas Members are affected by the dual mandate which is unconstitutional. Many Members of the Dáil and Seanad have expressed reservations about the Bill. I hope the President studies it when it is referred to her next week. I was not surprised I got an ear infection last week given that I have been listening to many Fianna Fáil people complaining about the Bill. They do not have the courage – I could use another word – to vote against it. They do not agree with it and they think it will be political suicide for them.

The Minister and the Department said that a package is in place for people who retire from county councils now or next year. Is that the only package on offer or is there a secret package for Senators? Will the Minister provide funding during the summer months for conferences for Senators? If the Minister were to do that, it would be outrageous. I fought for the Senators here because they were being foolish, particularly the Fianna Fáil Senators. They allowed the Minister to take them away from those who elected them – the county councillors. They need help and back-up but their silence cannot be bought. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there will be a package at another stage, as that would be very wrong.

I have given 25 years to local government and for 16 of those years I did not even draw expenses, as we used to put our expenses into a civic fund for visiting dignitaries. I had no problem with that but there was an incident with a public official and we stopped the practice. Members have drawn their expenses ever since but for 16 years I did not draw my expenses. As a Deputy I do not get paid as a councillor and I should not; that is not an issue.

Constitutionally, the Minister and the Government do not have the right to say who can or cannot stand for public office. The British Government tried to introduce a similar measure but it received legal advice that it could not do so. The political parties then introduced the measure themselves and I have been saying the same here for a long time. This is a matter for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour. There is no reason for it to be introduced in legislation. Let Fianna Fáil make it a party objective that Oireachtas Members cannot be councillors and Labour and Fine Gael can do the same. There is no reason to bring this into law.

We already did.

Good. That is the Green Party's choice.

I thank the Deputy for acknowledging that.

I have no problem with that but I have a problem with hypocrisy. One of the Deputy's colleagues was lecturing me about wages and salaries but I will not go into that now.

Acting Chairman:

Deputy Ring should speak through the Chair.

As Deputy Allen said, Fine Gael opposes this measure for a number of reasons. I would withdraw my challenge tomorrow morning if the Minister were to put in place a mechanism whereby I would be guaranteed a reply to a parliamentary question the Minister would refer on to my county manager, just as I am guaranteed a reply to parliamentary questions to the Minister himself. If the Minister were to do that I would withdraw my challenge, but otherwise I will continue. The Minister and his officials will tell me they have no responsibility in this area but we have responsibilities. We are the elected assembly. This is the Oireachtas and we make the laws.

I could bring in a letter that I wrote to my local authority in November and to which I received a reply last week. That is what we have to put up with and that is why I am concerned – we will lose contact with people on the ground. There was a massive turnover of Deputies in the last election and in the election after next there will be another massive turnover. Councillors will be on the ground while Deputies will be up here acting as legislators. I would love to be a legislator. Nobody can question my record on legislation and whether one agrees with me or not I have spoken on most Bills here. People cannot say I have not made a contribution, although I may have to read those contributions from the record when I am not in the Dáil myself.

One cannot lose contact with people on the ground. It must be unconstitutional for the Minister to say to me that, as an Oireachtas Member, I cannot stand for the council. If I were in the council I could stand for the Dáil; if I were in the European Parliament I could stand for that parliament, stay in the Dáil until the next election and stand for the council the same day. That is a contradiction in itself.

I have a top legal team in place. If the President does not refer this to the Supreme Court next week I will call a press conference and reveal my team, one of whom is a constitutional lawyer. There is also another lawyer of high reputation. I will win the case and then it will be up to the political parties to make the decision. It is wrong to go through with this Bill and even at this late stage it should be withdrawn.

I have great respect for President McAleese and she has my full support as President. I ask her to refer this legislation to the Supreme Court when she signs it into law to get a judgment on it. There is great concern among Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers as well as the Independents about the constitutionality of this measure but if the Supreme Court approves of this I will be the first to acknowledge I was wrong. It would not be my first time being wrong in politics; we all make mistakes.

What the Minister is doing is wrong. He is taking us away from our natural constituents. The Dáil is not like the British Parliament, where the MP never meets his constituents. I had the honour of being on the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body and I remember sitting next to an MP from Luton or wherever. He would have three or four staff with him giving him briefing documents on the issue of the day. I have one secretary in my constituency and we receive part funding for another secretary; those are the resources we have. I am a front bench spokesman for Fine Gael but I had to write up my own speech because I cannot take my secretary away from constituency. Whether we like it or not, when constituents ask us about potholes, medical cards or council roads they want a response. They do not want to hear we are legislators – they do not care. When they elect someone to the council or the Dáil, they expect a response.

Senators are elected by county councillors and I cannot understand why the Senators are allowing the Government to forbid them to sit on the council, next to those who elect them. This measure is not right and it will be thrown out by the courts. Some Fianna Fáil backbenchers support me, which I appreciate, and they want me to take this case. They are not doing this because they want to be on the council but because it means political survival for them.

If this Bill showed real local government reform we might think differently. However, it should not be called the Local Government Bill but the ending of the dual mandate Bill. That would be honesty. The Minister and his predecessor promised us directly elected mayors and cathaoirligh but that did not happen either.

I intend to challenge this measure. It may cost me money but I will do so and I hope to win the case. I hope the Minister does not live to regret this because, although he is not a bad person and does the best he can, if he loses this battle I will be calling for his resignation.

Acting Chairman:

Before calling Deputy McCormack, I remind Members there is a long-standing convention in the House that the President is not invoked in political debate or controversy. Also, we are on Report Stage and I would be grateful if Members would respect that.

I was aware of the first matter and I will respect the Chair's second request.

This problem could be solved if the Minister could lay out the guidelines by which he proposes to protect the rights of Oireachtas Members who will no longer be local authority members. That would solve most of the problems. It is obvious that the Minister has given certain assurances to Government backbenchers who did not wish this legislation to proceed. They have received certain assurances and if we all knew what those were there might be no need to oppose the Bill. We oppose the Bill on the issue of directly elected mayors but that could be sorted out also. Will the Minister lay out those regulations?

I was a member of Galway County Council for 27 years. I stepped down voluntarily on the last occasion and did not take redundancy because I remained a member of Galway City Council. I was in the unique position of being a member of a county council and a city council. I no longer have the same rights as a county councillor. I will give an example – I will not delay the House. I recently sought a copy of the county development plan – I would normally have received a copy of it the week it had been published – and was told I had to pay €45 for it as I was no longer a member of the local authority. I do not mind paying €45 for the plan but I no longer have the same rights as an elected representative in the same area which I represented in the county council for 27 years. I was told I had to pay €25 extra for the maps. I also do not have the same right of reply in relation to inquiries or representations which I am obliged to make as a public representative to the local authority. A member of a local authority – I am currently a member of one and was a member of another for 27 years – has a statutory right to put down what is called a prior notice and planning application whereby one is notified by the planning authority two of three days before a decision is taken if there is a difficulty with the application. The decision is not changed, one is merely notified of it. A person who is no longer a member of a county council does not have that right.

I would like the Minister to ensure that I retain my rights when I stand down from the city council. I will be obliged to do so in the next election if this Bill is in accordance with the Constitution. I do not know if the Minister is at liberty to do that. One of the difficulties I have as a legislator is that we debate legislation – as we are now doing – and are told the Minister will include other provisions by way of regulations at a later date. We do not know when passing legislation, what will follow.

People often point out that one voted for or against particular legislation and that one was a Member of the Dáil which introduced it. A regulation can be introduced at any time without recourse to what we are now discussing. It is obvious Government backbenchers who are not here are satisfied with the assurances the Minister has given them in regard to this legislation. Perhaps he could give us the same assurances as his backbenchers who are accepting this Bill. I ask that the Minister, at the first opportunity, spell out what regulations are to be introduced to protect councillors. I am not concerned about the person who replaces me on the local council. He or she will be as good a local representative as I have been. I and other Oireachtas Members will be a loss to councils from the point of view that my experience is useful when dealing with matters relating to the Oireachtas. More importantly, my experience as a sitting member of a local authority speaking on this Bill concerning local authority matters is far more valuable than a Chamber full of people who are no longer members of local authorities – there are 128 such people between the two Chambers. Such people will have less interest in the legislation being passed. Legislation should be scrutinised by people who are active members of local authorities at the time it is going through the Houses. That is one of the disadvantages.

We are trying to salvage crumbs at this stage. I follow Deputy Ring's line of reasoning in regard to the loss to the Oireachtas of not having sitting members of local authorities in the House. If the Minister does not wish to have 128 such Members, perhaps he might consider having 115 or, even 50 of them. If other parties follow the lead of the Green Party in suggesting to their members that they no longer stand for local authorities, we would have less county councillors in the House. It is important that we have some members of local authorities in this House. We are now dealing with Report Stage of this legislation and must accept it will be passed. Perhaps the Minister might outline – in order to allay fears on this side of the House – what regu lations he will introduce to ensure we retain our rights when dealing with local authority matters. I want the same rights for Oireachtas Members in respect of the constituency they represent as those afforded to members of a local authority with the exception of their not being able to attend or participate in council meetings. Whether or not the Minister likes it, we will have to continue dealing with such matters because that is our profession and duty. It is my duty to deal with legislation, as I am now doing, and to sit in my office from 8.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. on Monday to deal with issues raised by local people. That is why I am seeking assurances from the Minister regarding the rights we will have in dealing with local authority matters. Simply making suggestions or issuing guidelines to local authorities is not good enough. I want the position spelled out in regulations. While current county managers may be fair in terms of affording people their rights under such guidelines, their successors may operate them any way they like. The Minister should clearly spell out the regulations.

We applaud the principle of this Bill and will vote for it. Nonetheless, we are concerned – such concerns have been put on the record before – at the dropping of directly-elected mayors. We believe such a move would be a great step forward for towns and cities around the country. That idea has been dropped despite great pronouncements over the years that it would happen. We need look no further than the example of London where a directly-elected mayor is providing vision and leadership and is showing the way forward. The Minister is taking a retrograde step.

Many years ago, Barrington said that the function of national Government should be foreign affairs and defence and that local government should deal with many of the other issues on a local basis. That, I believe, is a point well made. I have ten years experience in local government. It is unfortunate that the Minister, given the Government majority, is not taking the opportunity to really devolve power to local level. It is a missed opportunity and I am saddened by it. However, I welcome the Bill.

On the information issue, it is important that local authorities are responsive. I have encountered the same problems as Deputy McCormack with the county council of being unable to obtain a draft county development plan without paying for it. The cost in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown region is €200. As a Member of this House, I should be allowed to have access to all documents and draft documents being brought before a council. The draft development plan is one of the most important documents in the Dublin area in particular, given the various tribunals under way. It is my duty to comment on such a plan because it examines the vision for the county. It is an area into which, as a national legislator, I should have some input. It is similar to a freedom of information issue. Members should be privy to docu mentation and be able to obtain it without paying a significant financial penalty.

The dropping of the directly elected mayors proposal is a huge retrograde step. From travelling and living abroad, I have seen what a strong local mayor can do in the larger cities and the smaller towns around Europe and the US. Electing good people as mayors who can lead a five-year programme as opposed to the 12-month changeover in place here, where a chain is simply shifted from one person's neck to another, is a hugely dynamic and interesting area of city and town management. Our system does not represent management, vision or leadership. The Minister missed a huge opportunity by not pursuing the directly-elected mayors proposal. No other Fianna Fáil Minister in the last generation has had such a majority with which he or she could proceed with legislation like this. It shows a lack of courage and a lack of conviction on the Minister's part and I regret that. Nonetheless, getting rid of the dual mandate is a good move and the Green Party supports the Bill on that basis.

Acting Chairman:

I would remind Members that we are dealing with amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and Members should confine their comments as far as possible to those amendments.

I commend the Minister on bringing forward at least half of this Bill, namely the first half which ends the dual mandate. We have heard about experienced members on local authorities, but how will that experience be gained unless we make way for new members coming in? The public will benefit from a significant increase in work because councillors, who have been getting some form of remuneration since 1999, will be able to devote more time to the council and deliver a better service to their constituents. While I am not criticising current legislators in any way, the Bill will certainly free up more of our time to dedicate to this function.

I cannot say whether or not I will be supporting this Bill because it remains to be seen how the Minister will deal with the amendments. I have a number of other issues to deal with, Chairman, but they relate to other amendments. I want to voice my support for the sentiment of the first half of this Bill.

The discussion so far on this has referred to the Bill in general. The Bill is really a pathetic little piece of legislation. It certainly is not local government reform. There are two measures being provided for here, the first of which is the abolition of the dual mandate to which I will return.

The second is the dropping of the provision for directly elected city and county mayors which is being done for electoral reasons. When the measure was initially invoked by the Minister's predecessor there was an expectation that a Fianna Fáil gauleiter in every city and county would emerge as the elected mayor with at least the power to ride shotgun on the county manager, tell him or her what to do, etc., and run the county or city in the Fianna Fáil interest. That does not appear to be a likely prospect now, given the degree to which the public is reacting to the lies it was told 12 months ago at the time of the general election. With that prospect beginning to fade, the measure to have directly elected city and county mayors is being dropped. It is being done for political reasons and there is no point in anybody disguising that fact.

It is also being done in a very regrettable context where this Government is presiding over a fundamental change in local government in this country. What would be recognised as local government in most other countries does not exist here and what we are rapidly moving towards is a system of local administration, with government and decision-making increasingly made at the centre and with few or no decisions being allowed to be made at local level. That is reflected in the degree to which powers are being transferred from elected councils to county managers. It is reflected in the fact that the executive or management side of local authorities is strengthened by the appointment of new directors of service, with a whole apparatus around them, while the elected side is being played down. Those are issues to which we will probably return.

The specific measure we are debating in the context of these three amendments is one to abolish the dual mandate. When that proposal initially surfaced here in the House two years ago, the Labour Party took a position on it. As a party we took the view that on balance – there are arguments for and against whether it should be abolished and many of these have been rehearsed here – we would support the abolition of the dual mandate. We took the view that it was necessary to do that by way of legislation because no matter how much we would like to think that there would be some kind of code of honour between political parties in the House as to whether Members would stand for both local authorities and the Oireachtas, the reality is that the nature of political competition will not allow that to happen. Therefore, again on balance, we took the view that it needed to be done by way of legislation and we indicated we were prepared to support that when it was before the House previously. That remains our position – we are consistent in that.

There are, however, a number of issues that arise from the proposal to abolish the dual mandate. The first, which has been referred to by a number of colleagues so far, is the question of public representation and the rights of public representatives, in this case to have access to local authorities but in a wider case to have access to public bodies generally and to get responses from public bodies generally. It is the case that many public bodies – local authorities are only the most recent converts to this view – are increas ingly becoming unresponsive to public representatives.

That is correct.

Some of them are doing so under the guise that they are public bodies and operate independently under statute and with almost a suggestion that they are doing so because they do not want political interference in the way they do their work. God forbid that they would have to be contaminated with having to answer a telephone call or a letter to a public representative.

I want to make clear that public bodies who are adopting that attitude are the very ones who are adopting an arrogant attitude to the public. They are the very same public bodies who will not respond to correspondence from citizens, who will not answer the telephone and who send somebody who rings in with a query from one answering machine to the next.

That is right.

Whenever we dispose of this legislation, one of the things we will require is legislation which will put an obligation on all public bodies to respond to, first, the public because after all they are the ones in whose service the public service is working and who are frustrated, and second, the people who are elected by the public to represent their interests. The democratic rights of the public need to be asserted.

On this nonsense which has started to develop in public bodies, that "we are independent professionals, we do not respond to public representatives", a sense of accountability and a restoration of a sense of public service is required, of which elected representatives of the people are ultimately the guarantors. That is the first issue.

The second issue relates to the question of political competition. A number of colleagues here have referred to, for example, the position when this legislation goes through – we will talk about the constitutional question later. In such cases, there is concern about the question of political competition as between people who are or are not members of local authorities, etc.

The question of political competition must be addressed. It will have to be addressed in the context of the disadvantage that Deputies, and indeed Senators, who are in Opposition now suffer as against officeholders in Government. It is no longer tolerable. There was much talk around the time of the formation of this Dáil that additional resources would be provided to Deputies and to Opposition parties, etc. I do not see any sign of that, which is the Minister for Finance's responsibility. In the absence of such resources, however, let me say this. It is not tolerable that officeholders have an entire army of civil servants,—

Spin-doctors.

—spin-doctors, consultants and PR people, some of whom are directly involved in their constituency in the servicing of their own individual constituencies and some of whom are doing so, albeit indirectly, in a very thinly disguised way. I have seen no evidence that resources will be provided to Opposition Members or spokespersons. I put the Minister and his colleagues on notice that from here on the question of five or six civil servants in the constituency office of a Minister doing constituency work and another number of PR people, etc. will be an issue to which we will return in this House and in public debate outside.

I refer to the question as to whether it is constitutional to abolish the dual mandate. We can all express opinions on that here and ultimately either if the President decides to refer the issue or if Deputy Ring or anybody else decides to take a case, it will be a matter that will be decided in the courts.

The Minister has a responsibility to tell the House what is his advice. I agree with Deputy Allen that so far the Minister has failed to tell the House explicitly what advice he has. On Committee Stage he gave us general responses on this, but he has not circulated that advice to us nor has he put his advice on the issue of constitutionality on the record of the House. On Committee Stage the Minister was quite flaky in response to the direct questions as to what advice he had from the Attorney General in response to the points that came up both in the Seanad debate and on Second Stage here. I again invite the Minister to explicitly tell the House.

As my colleagues have said, the Minister carries the can for this. There is nothing unusual about legislation going through the Oireachtas and subsequently, because of something to which nobody had adverted is found to be unconstitutional. It would be quite different for the Minister to bring legislation before the House and assure us it is constitutional. The constitutional issue has been raised in a number of different ways and the Minister has proceeded with it. If it eventually goes down in flames, the Minister will carry the can for that. He should put on the record of the House verbatim the advice he has from the Attorney General – if he has such advice about which there is some doubt.

My amendments specifically address the distinction between the question of the dual mandate per se– that is the simultaneous holding of membership of a local authority and membership of the Oireachtas – and the right to stand for election. In amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I am proposing to leave in place the prohibition on simultaneous membership of a local authority and the Oireachtas, but to allow for the right for Members of the Oireachtas, if they so choose, to stand for election to a local authority.

I will outline a practical scenario. A Member of the Oireachtas might come to the conclusion that he or she no longer wanted to be a Member of the Oireachtas, but wanted to remain active in representational politics and might want to stand in a local election. Under the Bill before us, that Member of the Oireachtas would have to resign his or her membership of the Oireachtas before standing for election. That seems constitutionally questionable at least. I am proposing a formula whereby a Member of the Oireachtas could still decide to stand for election and the issue of dual membership would only arise if that person were elected to the local authority.

My amendment No. 3 provides that if such a person decides not to take up the local authority seat, the seat would go to the person next highest in voting order. The Minister seemed to find some general favour with that and could see the point of it when we debated it on Committee Stage, but put up the argument that election regulations would have to be changed and so on. He is exaggerating that and in any event, there is plenty of time between now and the local elections in the middle of 2004 to make whatever consequential changes are necessary in the election regulations to facilitate this.

At the very least my two amendments would help to protect this Bill against constitutional challenge if the Minister is so inclined to look favourably on them. He gave a not entirely enthusiastic undertaking to look at it before Report Stage. I saw no amendment to deal with this in his name and therefore I tabled these two amendments again on Report Stage in the hope that the Minister will accept them.

I agree with Deputy Gilmore's point about the responsibility of public bodies to elected representatives. In my 16 or 17 years in public life, there has been a change of approach in the response of various public bodies. Some of this has been as a result of responsibility having moved away from Ministers to various authorities. Even at that level we have less input. In direct representations there is a move to question our right to pursue issues with the implication that we are interfering with their work and delaying them. Sometimes we hear the response that they are wasting their time in trying to deal with queries from councillors and Deputies when they should be doing real work. The people want us to make those representations.

In all democratic countries representations are made by national and local politicians. Some years ago a study found that in Britain where most of the MPs live in London, 50% of their time was spent writing about issues of concern to their constituents. The issue of constituency representation may occasionally be frowned upon by the highbrow media, which suggest that is not part of our work. However the people decide what they want us to do. They want us to represent them on individual, community and national issues and they want us to legislate as well. We must ensure we adopt that role. As the Minister knows, at election time people vote on the candidates' performance in making representations for their constituency.

Some professions look with disdain at representations by a councillor or Deputy. For example, a few months ago a constituent came to me who was extremely concerned about her child who had a psychiatric illness and was suicidal. I wrote of her concerns in detail to the health board and this was passed to the psychiatrist. After receiving that, the psychiatrist criticised the woman the next time he saw her for involving politicians and tying him up in all sorts of paperwork. This was a very concerned mother who was deeply distressed about the treatment her child was receiving, as was I. I could give many more examples.

Because of my representations in that area, a manager of a health board at deputy chief officer level asked me to attend a meeting to discuss my representations on the basis that I might be interfering with the confidentiality of the relationship between the health board and the constituent.

Because I did not kowtow to him and accept what he was saying he put it in writing and asked me for a reply which he got – he sent me a further letter, copies of which I have, about his concern at my representations. That is endemic in the public service. Yesterday I got a phone call from a constituent who wanted me to get information from a planning officer. He had telephoned the planning section of the local authority five times over two weeks and each time got an answering machine saying the call would be returned, which it was not. The planning section in my local authority is usually good and responsive. I regularly find that people no longer answer telephones. Answering machines tell the public to leave their number and someone will respond to them, but they are not responding. That is the experience right across the board.

Even private sector companies are not answering now. One cannot get anyone on the phone anymore.

I appreciate that. I fully agree with the Minister, but surely it is intolerable that any aspect of the public service, be it a Department, local authority, health board or any other board which is responsible to the State, would treat the public in that way. They are the servants of the public and are being paid by the public through their taxes. It often amazes me in clinics to hear how people are treated when they apply for a simple thing like a grant or something that should be easy to get. We do not receive the same treatment because we are public representatives. What training is being given to staff? This applies only to a small section of people. I do not wish to tar everybody with the one brush. In fairness to the majority who do a good job, it is those who do a bad job that are highlighted to us. Nobody will come to us to say he or she met a public servant who did a great job. People ring when they are in trouble or dissatisfied. I expect that it is a small minority which is responsible for this, but it is a significant and growing one. I am pleased the Minister has agreed with me on that point and with the other statements that my colleagues, including our spokesman, have made in that regard.

I wish to touch on the advantages of a dual mandate. If there is one area in which Members of this House are expert, it is local government. The different State bodies and Ministries are extremely complex and I do not fully understand how they work. I understand local government because I have been involved in it for up to 17 years. It is a most complex area. The Minister will accept that up to 80% of our queries are in regard to local government issues. As public representatives, we have more expertise in local government because of our involvement in it. We bring that expertise in here. If there is one debate in which Members will always have an interest and express an opinion, it is in the area of local government because of our education as local government representatives.

The dual mandate gives us another platform to bring up issues. If, as sometimes happens, the county manager or whoever is responding to the query, blames the Minister, stating: "The Minister did not give us that", "the regulations are this" or "the regulations are that", they know that we have another platform. We can put down a parliamentary question to the Minister. People have to be careful in regard to TDs and Senators who have another forum to query a matter. It is an advantage to local government that we can bring issues of concern to a higher level, not alone in the Minister's Department but in other Departments as well.

The same applies to health boards. I was on a health board for seven years and I had the same experience. Issues of concern at that level could be brought up to a different level. That will come to an end. Who will be happy about it?

The managers.

Yes. The managers for a start, although not all managers. I do not want to tar everybody with the one brush. Local government officials will be happy. At the moment if they express an opinion or give information they know that there are several people at local government level who will take it up at a different level by tabling a Dáil question or Adjournment debate matter and so on. There is currently a level of scrutiny of local government officials who will be pleased to see it removed.

The civil servants are another case in point. They will be delighted to know that we will be less informed about the developments in local government as TDs and Senators. Again, this does not apply to all of them. There is a group of civil servants who will be delighted that the Oireachtas will be less well informed about what is happening on the ground. Some 80% of the concerns of those who contact us are about areas of difficulty for individuals or their communities.

I do not know the Minister's view of Better Local Government. There is a problem in the health service, which I accept is not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. We all know that the basic problem is that administration and non-coalface activities are gobbling up all the available resources. The same situation is developing in local government. There are now more managers, changes of position, alteration of job specifications—

Jobs for the boys and girls.

—and confusion around that area. There is so much contact to be made all over the place before any decision is made. I see it happening and I am even losing track of it at this stage. Concerned local government officials have spoken to me about the bureaucracy and the inherent inefficiency in decision-making. Consultation is important but over-consultation can inhibit decision-making. It is happening. If this continues to develop, I foresee a situation in five years' time when the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will be under the same pressure as the Minister for Health and Children is today. The money will be gobbled up in all these systems and the services will be reduced. It has moved in that direction. The Minister has time to re-examine this area before it is too late.

We had a manager who worked well in our local government area. There was a change of manager which we found out about six months later. We were not told about it because there was a change of manager with a different idea of how things should be managed. I experienced a time when the management of local government was unquestionable. I remember Dick Haslam who was a manager in Limerick, and he went to Cork afterwards. He was a brilliant manager. We had untold confidence in his ability to manage the business of Limerick County Council. The public also had confidence in him. It was akin to the confidence one would have in a senior manager in one of the biggest companies in the country. He was extremely successful. The job has become so complex with Better Local Government and—

Directors of services.

—directors of services. Is the county engineer also a director of service? We do not know. The Minister should look again at this matter before he ends up under the same pressure as his colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, because of lack of delivery of service and the gobbling up of money.

My situation may be somewhat unusual, in the sense that I was a Member of this House for some years before I became a member of a local authority. Deputy Gilmore put forward the argument that Oireachtas Members should be allowed to stand in local elections, following which they could decide as to which position they would retain. I cannot imagine a situation in which very many would resign from this House in favour of membership of local authorities. I am certainly not aware of any within the Fianna Fáil party and I doubt if there are any among the 166 Members of this House.

Perhaps the Deputy would like to encourage them.

It would be wrong to allow Oireachtas Members to stand in local elections. It would result in parties putting forward their best vote catchers, who would subsequently resign in favour of a party colleague. In fairness, the electorate should know, in advance of the election, that those elected will continue to serve and should be in a position to pass judgment on them.

When this Bill was first mooted by the previous Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, there were heated exchanges in all parties in regard to it. The greatest concern on the part of Members was the fear that, if they were not on a local authority, local councillors would gain an unfair advantage which might cost votes in a future election. That is a very real fear and, accordingly, it is important that Members of the House have access to local authorities and are kept up to date on developments.

There is not any substantial public concern as to whether we are members of one or two elected bodies. However, eliminating the dual mandate will allow for an increase in the number of public representatives and that can only be good for democracy. I have no difficulty in accepting the new situation and will resign my local authority seat when this legislation is enacted.

I thank Members for their contributions. I believe we covered almost every aspect of this Bill, other Bills, the Departments of other Ministers and various other matters on Committee Stage, which is rather unusual. However, all of us appear to be in good humour today. I respect the many legitimate and deeply held views expressed by Members during the debate. So be it, but I happen to hold a different point of view. From the beginning, my position on the issues has been clear. I have acknowledged that the scope of this Bill is narrow and I did not pretend otherwise. It is narrow and quite specific, but it is a very important step in the separation process, as it were, and development of the local government system. It is a key element in delivering that system.

Deputy Gilmore referred to certain changes and suggested the Government might be under pressure, resulting in the elimination of directly elected chairs. When I took office in the full flush of last summer, my view on this issue was very well known. It is not simply a reaction to some subsequent change. I and other Deputies have been around long enough to know that the tide comes in and goes out, moods change and situations change. It would be very foolish to draft legislation or attempt something fundamental simply on the basis of the mood of the moment. My position is a very principled one. It would be entirely wrong to tell those who are democratically elected to any forum that they cannot democratically elect the cathaoirleach or mayor, as the case may be, of their own council from among their members who have been democratically elected by the public.

The Minister voted for that on a previous occasion.

It is wrong. That is my view and I am now in a position to do something about it. I gave it a great deal of consideration and my position was known. That is not the system we use in this Parliament. Following our election to the Dáil, we do not use some other method of electing a Taoiseach. There are different styles and systems in other countries. Our system is that we elect our Leader, the Taoiseach of the day, from among those democratically elected. The same system should apply in a local authority, as I believe all councillors would agree.

A party leader goes before the people on the basis that, if he wins, he will become Taoiseach.

With regard to the idea floated by Deputy Allen in relation to Cork or Dublin, there has been no approach to me from Cork or Dublin by those involved in the system to suggest they would prefer to have a directly elected mayor.

From whom would the Minister expect such an approach?

I am simply making the point that there is no ground swell in that regard among the people, public representatives or, for that matter, from any quarter.

Is that because they see local government as irrelevant at this stage?

No, I do not believe that is the case. People see local government, in many respects, as very central and important in their lives. I refute one of the themes which has come forward in various aspects of the debate. Some people seem to believe that, in order to be involved in local politics and issues, one has to be a member of a local council. That is absolute nonsense. Like Deputy Power, I have had experience of both situations. I have been in this House while not being a member of a local authority. I have been on a local authority when I was not a Member of this House. I have served in Opposition. My ability to represent the people on local issues has never been predicated—

The Minister should not overlook Deputy Power's comments.

I did not interrupt anybody. I do not have much time to reply to the debate. My ability to represent people has never been predicated on being a member of a local authority. In my capacity as Minister for the Environment and Local Government, as is the case with other Ministers, Deputies are constantly putting questions to me about matters which are hugely germane to local authorities and local areas. That will not change. That situation will pertain into the future. One does not have to be a member of a local authority. As a public representative, I have dealt with local authorities and health boards for many years. That is not predicated on my having to be a member of a local authority to do so.

The Minister is dealing with them as a Minister, which is rather different.

No, as I have said, I did so as a Deputy in Opposition, before I became a Minister.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister, without interruption.

I accept the view expressed here and in the other House in relation to the facilities which Members need.

My experience was different. I was refused information, even as a Minister of State.

That should not be the case. I fully agree with the views of Deputies and Senators as to the facilities which should be available to them. Members need far more, in terms of researchers and office support. I agree absolutely with that. In fairness to the Minister for Finance, he has come a long way in terms of facilities for Deputies, over the past five years. I like to think I played some role in that regard in relation to Leinster House 2000, when I had the opportunity. Prior to that, the matter had been on the desks of successive Ministers of State but nothing was done about it. I took that ball and ran with it at the time. Such issues must evolve. In relation to the Oireachtas set-up which is being discussed, including the possibility of a Secretary General and so on, I am sure all of those issues will come to the fore again and will have to be dealt with. However, that is not for me to deal with.

Deputy Ring asked a specific question as to whether there is some other deal which has been done elsewhere. Certainly, there is not I can assure the Deputy, nor am I in a position to do such a deal. The only issue I have dealt with is the straightforward package I have put forward. Senators have legitimately raised issues in the context of their facilities. There is a review of the Seanad currently in progress and it will become deeper towards the end of the year. I accept there are quite legitimate issues in terms of how Senators carry out their functions, but that is a matter for them to deal with. I am not in a position to go beyond that. I accept, as I have already done with Members on both sides of the House, that facilities need to be better. As a Minister of the Government, I have no difficulty in putting that on record and, as I have said, the Minister for Finance has accepted that by consistently improving the situation in recent years. I have examined Deputy Gilmore's proposal regarding the two amendments and while I am interested in it, I wish to keep the matter consistent with all the other exclusions. We have a raft of exclusions concerning people who can or cannot stand but I will not go through them all again. I want to keep the legislation on all fours in that regard. Members of the public are the only ones entitled to remove someone from this House, unless somebody is declared bankrupt or is appointed a judge. I do not think I can insert anything in the legislation forcing a Deputy to resign his or her seat because it would involve major constitutional issues. I hope the Deputy will accept that point.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share