It is sad to see a Senator put out of the House for trying to protect——
Local Government Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 10, after "Government" to insert "(Enabling Provisions)".
—(Senator Costello.)
The Senator is starting off on the wrong foot. He may be the next to follow Senator McMahon in hot pursuit. I am advising the Senator for the last time——
A Senator
Maybe he wants to go home.
I have put down too many amendments to wish to go home. I will not be pressing my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (10), line 6, after "days" to insert "(being a day or days not later than twelve months from the date of its enactment)".
This is an important amendment. As it stands, no time provision is included in the Bill for its implementation. It is a serious matter that legislation can be brought into existence without anyone knowing when it will be implemented. Like so many other provisions in the legislation, it will be left to the discretion of the Minister to decide, as he thinks best, when the Bill should come into effect. Section 1 (10) states:
This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as, by order or orders made by the Minister, may be fixed therefore either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision ...
This means that certain sections can be implemented without the Bill being implemented in its entirity. No definite timescale is given in the Bill for its implementation. I do not think we should pass legislation without questioning this aspect and ensuring that a defined and determined date is fixed for its implementation.
I support this amendment. The Bill is inadequate and insufficient to meet the needs of local democracy. The implementation date must be outlined more clearly than it is in section 1 (10). This section needs to be strengthened and I fully support the amendment.
I also support Senator Costello's amendment. We have spoken at length on our reservations about the Bill. While some sections of the Bill may be acceptable to us, a timescale should be fixed for its implementation. As we have seen in the case of the Environmental Agency Bill, this Bill and other Bills there seems to be an open ended timescale in regard to their implementation. The Minister should give us a fixed date for the implementation of the Bill. He did not have an opportunity to reply to the points raised by Senators on Second Stage and I ask him to now outline the timescale envisaged for the implementation of the Bill which he will be able to stand over so that those of us who are members of local authorities will know the exact position.
I, too, support the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment and will not tie up the Minister too greatly. I do not think the words "being a day or days not later than twelve months from the date of its enactment" would place any great restraint on the Minister. It seems absurd that this Bill is being put through both Houses, particularly the Seanad at such a rapid pace with the clear purpose of enabling the local elections to take place——
Senator Norris, you missed the earlier proceedings and I should like to point out that I will not allow what you are now engaged in. The Senator will deal with the amendment and will not refer to the local elections or any other difficulties he is having. I advise the Senator to stick to the amendment.
I do not think that is an appropriate comment from you, a Chathaoirligh——
That is the tone the Senator will have to accept as I am going to make sure that this House does its business. In deference to the Senator, he was not here when the debate started and, in his interests, I am now explaining that he must stick to amendment No. 2.
I was simply pointing out that there is a paradox between the sense of urgency on the one hand it is obvious that the Bill has to go through — and the fact that there is no time limit on the other hand. I should like to place on the record that there is a clear absurdity here.
The absurdity would be to allow this amendment to stand. The amendment is unnecessary and would have certain undesirable consequences for the simple reason that if a provision was not commenced with within the timescale suggested in the amendment, it could never commence. It is my intention to move as quickly as possible in regard to many matters immediately after the enactment of the Bill. That would be the case in many areas. There are some specific items that might not be available to be dealt with within the time frame suggested. I would hope to go ahead with electoral matters in Part III.
In relation to Dublin reorganisation, Part IV, as many as possible of the general provisions will be brought into operation on the commencement of the term of office of the new county councils. There may be some outstanding items because of problems that might arise that would need further consideration. It would be absurd to tie one's hand specifically to one date and then perhaps not be able to bring in the provisions outlined in the Bill which would be of benefit to everybody.
A group will look at some of the changes in the reserved functions. It would be the intention of the legislation to transfer new powers on a continuing basis but that will take some years. There will be a committee sitting to deal with reserved functions. They will have to be teased out and this may run over the commencement date suggested in the amendment. It would be an absurdity then because one would be taking a decision to negative the good of this legislation. I ask that this amendment be abandoned.
No, we cannot abandon this amendment. It is too important. The point is well made that there has been an inordinate urgency about compelling us to sit here last night until midnight and then putting a time limit on the discussions today. We cannot even get an answer as to whether there are any arrangements made for any amendment if it was passed here.
Senator Costello, I am asking you, for the last time——
I am seeking an explanation as to why we have no terminal date for the implementation of this Bill and at the same time there is a mad rush to ensure that it goes through without giving us the opportunity to properly discuss it. For that reason we have no choice but to press the amendment. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say it will be done as quickly as possible. "As quickly as possible" and "as soon as is practicable" are hoary old chestnuts. This is not good enough for a House that is legislating. Legislating means putting through legislation that will be implemented. What is the sense in saying that there is a wide range of areas in the Bill but the Minister does not say when they might be implemented? Why should we have to rush this legislation? What we want is practical, concise legislation and a time scale that is determined. Otherwise we are wasting our time.
The Senator misses a very fundamental point. That is just a first piece of legislation in a programme of legislation that will be necessary to reform local government. If I was to concede the point the Senator is making we would be working against the interests of local communities and local authority members. For example, committees have been a standard part of local government for many years and we are giving them a statutory basis in this legislation. Subject to the decision of local authorities, certain committees may not need to be established for up to two years. To deny the right for anything to happen after a 12 month period is anti-reformist.
On the surface at least the Minister made some reasonable points, in that this is a major reorganisation of local government and there may be a need for further discussion. That is a reasonable point for the Minister to make. On the other hand it is possible that there could be an election within the next year. It is highly likely one will take place within two years or so. Depending on the time scale I would assume that if only certain sections of the Bill are operational by the time of an election, the remaining sections would lapse.
They will not.
I see the Minister is shaking his head. I have to accept what he says but I would have assumed that that would be the case. It would certainly pass into a kind of legislative limbo. There is no doubt about that. Presumably an incoming Minister would have the opportunity to tinker with the legislation in whatever way he or she wished.
The Minister says he is not convinced of the appropriateness or value of this amendment. If he were convinced of the appropriateness of any one of the 143 amendments, would he envisage being in a position to accept such an amendment because of the technical difficulties, for example, of recalling the Dáil? I know there is a terminal date. I am not being argumentative in saying that, but I wonder if there is much point in urging the acceptance of amendments, with whatever force of argument we can, if, for technical reasons, it is highly unlikely or virtually impossible that any of them will be accepted.
The Senator is raising a hypothetical situation. It is not for the Minister to decide what amendments will or will not be supported here this evening. Should a situation arise——
What arrangements have been made?
No arrangements have been made. It is discourteous, to put it mildly, for the Senator to suggest that.
Allow the Minister, please, Senator Costello——
The only arrangements that have been made is that the Seanad is sitting this evening to consider amendments to this legislation. Should the Seanad, in its wisdom, decide to accept amendments, or should the Minister in his wisdom decide either to accept any amendment put forward or to pursue an amendment of his own, that matter will be dealt with subsequently. It is not a matter for us to consider now.
I would point out to Senator Norris that legislation does not discontinue just because a Government falls unless it is repealed or otherwise interfered with by legislation. All the provisions of this Act will have an ongoing implementation; some of them will be implemented immediately after the enactment. With regard to the question about the postponement of sub-county structural elections, obviously that is going to have to take place immediately. Then there is the creation of the new councils in the Dublin area which I would like to see expedited immediately after the local elections and which the Senator has been supportive of. There are other elements of the legislation which will continue on an ongoing basis for the benefit of the local authorities they propose to serve. To do anything to negative the possibility of the Minister applying this in an ongoing way would be to act in an anti-reformist way.
The Minister is so much above the microphone that I find it difficult to hear him. I wish he would raise the microphone. I find it difficult to hear him.
Senator Harte would have no difficulty if I decided to raise the volume.
Only raise the microphone a little.
I do not find the Minister's reply totally satisfactory. I do not accept what he said to Senator Costello. It is quite clear that this Bill can be implemented within a certain time. It is not a bar on any further enabling legislation in relation to committees and so on. Following on what Senator Norris said in relation to the question of amendments, the Minister was being mischievous, if not misleading, in indicating that he did not know what amendments might or might not be accepted. The reality is that no amendments will be accepted this evening. While the Minister may not admit that here and now I would be reasonably correct in forecasting that no matter what amendment we have on this side——
The Senator is now being mischievous.
——he is going to say, for one reason or another it is not appropriate etc. A time should be specified otherwise it could be open-ended for all time. I hope that Senator Costello will push this amendment to the ultimate.
Senator Costello, are you pressing your amendment?
What the Minister has said confirms that what I was seeking to do in the first amendment, that is to describe the Bill as an enabling provision, is right. All the Minister has described are things that may be enabled to take place depending on an order made by the Minister at some time in the future. It is insubstantial. The Minister can now give us a good indication of his intent to accept amendments because I intend to press this amendment.
Let me make one response to that because I think it should be put on the record. To seek to confine the implementation of the provisions of this legislation to a specific period of time, whether a month, week or year, is to negative the whole thrust of the reform elements of the legislation, and that is what is being contemplated here now. It is not true to say that this is just enabling legislation. Even the most casual perusal of the Bill by the Senator would have shown that. The questions on the changes in section 4 alone prove the point.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- Ryan, John.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Foley, Denis.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Costello and Harte; Níl, Senators Wright and S. Haughey.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following definition:
"‘local community' means all persons normally resident in the functional area of a local authority;".
This amendment seeks to define "local community". Specific reference is made to the local community in Part II which deals with the functions of local authorities. A local authority may represent the interests of the local community and there are many ways in which this may take place. It is important that we know precisely how a local community will be defined. In the definitions section no interpretation is given of the local community. This amendment is necessary because it determines how the local authority should relate to the local community and the parameters of the local community. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
With respect to Senator Costello, this is the most daft amendment ever put down on paper in this House. I am amazed at Senator J. Ryan who had many years of service in local government as he certainly knows what local communities mean. Why does Senator Costello want a definition of local community, the people in the area, in the Bill? If the Senator is elected to a local authority he will then know what the local community means.
Considering this broadside from Senator Honan — a former Cathaoirleach — whose opinion I normally respect and listen to, and indeed reflect on occasionally, I am surprised at her outburst. "Local community" is not defined anywhere in this Bill.
We know what it means; the Senator will find out after the election, if he is elected.
We do not all have the accumulated expertise which Senator Honan may have in this matter.
Rubbish.
This legislation is for those of us who have not hitherto served on a local authority and for the ordinary public. Let us not think we are the only people who participate and have to understand this legislation. The local authority may represent the interests of the local community. The local community could be defined as less than the area of the local authority and surely Senator Honan would recognise that as a possible definition? There are varied, possible definitions of a local community.
My local community in Seán McDermott Street might be quite different in terms of definition geographically, structurally or from the viewpoint of population compared to Senator Honan's local community. If we determine the parameters of the local community as being coterminous with the local authority area and that a local community member is a person who normally resides within the functional area of the local authority, we are doing a very good day's work.
That would be the worst day's work we could do. I considered this matter at some length. Senator Costello made the case for me when he said that there are varied possible definitions of communities and residents. I want the term "local community" to take its ordinary, everyday meaning which we all understand it to be. It would be wrong to define it because it would be totally restricted to the finite. The Senator's definition would limit it to the persons normally resident in the particular administrative area to which he has referred. When local authorities get involved in implementing their functions, those functions frequently have an importance to the residents way beyond their administrative area. It was not always intended that an authority's action would be strictly confined to its own residents.
The decision of an urban district council could have an effect on residents beyond the environs of their own administrative area, and if one was to restrict them in this way it would run contrary to the whole question of local democracy. The local community often crosses even county boundaries at boundary towns. One county should be enabled to take action to benefit what in normal terms is the local community, those people living in the local area. For those reasons I have decided that to define it would be wrong. It would be unduly restrictive and it would be a great mistake to seek to include it here. Those of us who are familiar with the activities of local authorities and the way they implement their functions are aware that very often decisions taken by them cover not just the urban council district and county electoral area but also the next electoral area and very often other counties where county boundaries and towns are adjacent, a position with which some Senators will be familiar. This amendment is anti-local government.
The Minister has not responded at all to the point I made. The local authority are the body elected to represent their community and other local authorities are elected to represent other communities. There is provision elsewhere in the Bill for an interchange of activity between local authorities, but each local authority represent their own community. The Bill states this categorically in other sections. In section 5 (2) "A local authority may ... ascertain and communicate to other local authorities and public authorities the views of the local community." How do the local authority know what local community they are to represent? Surely it should be prescribed that their function is to represent the local community that elects them. Section 6 (1) (b) states: "For the purposes of this section a measure, activity or thing shall be deemed to promote the interests of the local community if it promotes, directly or indirectly, the social, economic, environmental, recreational, cultural community ...".
It is the function of the local authority to represent the community in their area rather than to step into an area where another local authority have been elected. I do not understand what the Minister is saying. A local authority elected within a particular constituency or ward area have a special function and duty to represent that area. This should be prescribed in the Bill. It should state that the local authority shall represent the local community that elects them and the local authority shall have duties and liabilities in relation to the local community that elects them. I cannot understand why the Minister is so vague in this matter and why he is not prepared to accept a definition of a local community. If it is not defined we cannot direct the local authority to represent the people who elect them.
That seems to be bureaucracy gone crazy. The Minister has already related some of our experiences in relation to local communities. A local authority per se do not represent just one local community. In a particular local authority area there can be many housing estates and, therefore, many local communities. It would be absolute madness to put in such a tight legal definition of something which varies greatly.
Surely the point is not whether the local authority represent the local community — of course they represent the local community — but what is the definition of local community? I support Senator Honan's admirable, commonsense point of view expressed earlier, that you cannot lay down such restrictions by definition as to preclude the authority from exercising their function in the interests of the community as a whole. I will give a concrete example. Kilcullen is divided not in terms of the council — it is still under the jurisdiction of Kildare County Council — but it stretches over two Dáil constituencies. The most cohesive unit in rural Ireland is the parish. This area is still a community even though it elects people to two different Dáil constituencies. Therefore, this amendment makes no sense whatever.
I fail to understand the thrust of Senator Costello's point. Obviously, if we were to pursue his attitude to finality it would simply restrict the interchange that is required. Perhaps he has misread the fundamental thrust of this legislation. We are talking here about an openness, not about doing anything restrictive. Is the Senator suggesting that if a town authority were to provide facilities for a community of town residents, those facilities should not be made available to or usuable by people other than the residents of the area which the authority serve? I am saying that if we provide facilities for a local community they should be available to those who work in the community, those who travel into it and those who might come to use the facilities for leisure purposes. To put into legislation the kind of restriction suggested would work contrary to the whole concept of community. I am surprised at the Senator.
The Minister is misconstruing what I said. I am saying that the local community means all persons normally resident in the functional area of a local authority, in the context of what is represented by the local authority. Section 5 says that a local authority may represent the interests of the local community. That does not prevent other people availing of the services. I am talking about the representational area.
With all due respects, the Senator is talking about section 6. I suggest he wait until we reach that section.
I am talking about sections 5 and 6. This amendment is not restrictive. It states where the parameters of representation should be drawn and that is an important point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 38, after "Minister" to insert "subject to section 3".
This amendment proposes to tidy up the description. "Prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly. Therefore, to insert "made by the Minister subject to section 3" is not to give a carte blanche but to indicate where these powers and regulations are to be limited to the Minister.
This is a standard provision. It is a standard definition of the word "prescribed". It has been used in many Acts for many years. "Prescribed" means prescribed by regulations, and regulations can be made only in so far as the Act provides for it. The amendment is unnecessary and it adds nothing to this legislation. Of course all regulations are subject to the provisions of the Act and they cannot go beyond that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following definition:
"‘represents the interests of the local community' means to ascertain in a democratic manner, to reflect and to carry out the wishes of the local community to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the rights of every citizen (including minority rights) being fully protected;".
Amendment No. 5 seeks to insert a further interpretation or definition to emphasise the functions of the local authority in relation to representing the interests of the local community, to indicate that they should be exercised in a democratic fashion and that they should extend to all citizens, not just to some.
There is not any need for this amendment. There is no need for a definition of "represents the interests of the local community." Under section 5, this will be a function of the local authority. As it is at the moment, it will be a matter for the democratically elected members of the authority acting as the council to determine what action they wish to take to fulfil their representational role in the very same way as it is a matter for this House. It is no different.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)
Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 36, after "regulations" to insert "subject to subsection 4".
In the context of the section most of the amendments have a common thread running through them in relation to the regulations and orders that may be made by the Minister. The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, and as the Minister indicated in his contribution, is to expand and reform local government, and devolve authority to the local authority. What we have at present is a highly centralised system which started as a local system but which over the years through the structures that were built up, through the manner in which the financing took place, and through a very tight managerial system became a centralised form of government. In this section the Minister is going beyond that and taking to himself all sorts of powers in relation to regulations, orders and directions.
These powers can be exercised under this section by the Minister without reference to the Oireachtas. Indeed, where there is reference to referring orders to the Oireachtas, in many cases it is on a negative basis rather than on an affirmative basis, in that the regulation or order is passed into law unless there is an objection within 21 days. On an affirmative basis regulations would be presented to the House, the House would debate them, vote on them and then the orders or regulations would become law. My concern is that we are giving overriding powers to the Minister in relation to this section and that defeats the purpose of this Bill and what the Minister has stated this Bill to be about. The section causes me grievous concern about the way in which, reforms that are intended will be operated. It is for that reason that we are seeking to delete so many of these sections. We are seeking to ensure that where regulations are made under this Bill the Minister must have resort to the House in a positive way.
These amendments are the first in a series of amendments to section 3. In essence what the Senator is trying to do is to require that every order or regulation to be made under this Bill would first have to be approved in draft by both Houses. I have a simple question to put to this House, do members believe or not in subsidiary legislation? What the Senator is attempting to do is to go back 100 years, and he knows that. The effect of his approach, if applied to legislation generally, would be that every detail in the implementation of this Bill would come before the Oireachtas. I do not have to say Senators that——
Boundary alterations?
——if we were to do that we would be in continuous session for 365 days of the year. The Senator knows that. For that reason the details of legislation are left to subsidiary legislation. That is a basic principle in workable legislation, as we understand it, in a modern democracy.
The case is quite contrary to what the Senator is suggesting. Every regulation made under this Bill will come before the Oireachtas. The more important ones will come by way of draft. All the others, have to be laid before the House by way of regulation and they are subject to annulment within the 21 days. If the Senator had his way, every item of minutiae attached to the implementation of every provision in this legislation — obviously this is a principle with him — would have to be cleared by both Houses of the Oireachtas in draft before it becomes a regulation. Now I ask the Senator if he is serious in pursuing this.
That is the way it was in the last century but I do not think it is the way for a modern democratic parliament to do its business when one considers that Parliament retains absolute control anyway, for primary legislation, and then subsequently, for matters in draft before both Houses. The Senator wants everything to become an Act of Parliament, every minute detail and I doubt if the House will pursue that matter any further.
The Minister's reply is fairly credible except when he talks about the Houses sitting 365 days a year. He cannot be really serious talking like that when an important Bill with 54 or 55 sections is being jack-booted through in one hour. Under the same criteria regulations will probably be put through in a couple of minutes. It is important that the House has an opportunity to discuss fairly standard regulations from time to time. It is possible that 90 per cent of them will go through on the nod. The Minister in saying that there may be a huge difficulty and that we would suddenly find ourselves here in August, September, or on St. Stephen's Day is not being serious. The reality is, as we have seen in the last day or two, and as we will probably see again with the Finance Bill next week, when the Minister's side want to put through even major legislation, it can be put through almost without debate. There is no reason why the Minister could not enter into the spirit behind the amendment.
I agree with Senator Cosgrave. The spirit of the amendment reflects the concern the Labour Party have about the wording of this section. It certainly was not my intention that every regulation or order should have to come before the House. My concern was to restrict the powers of the Minister. I know the Minister likes to have all power, but this is a democracy. This section gives all power to the Minister.
The Messiah.
How we may describe him is a matter of individual opinion.
If I was the Senator I would not pursue that line.
The Minister should look at section 3 (2): "By any regulation or order made thereunder as may appear to the Minister to be appropriate". The Minister might get up one morning and decide to make a regulation because effectively he does not have to answer to anybody. I am concerned that this entire section is peppered by powers granted to the Minister, without restriction. That is the spirit in which these amendments have been put forward, to restrict all power going to the Minister. If the power was left with the local authority we would not need to go to the Oireachtas. I am not happy that taking the power from the local authority and giving to the Minister is better than going to the Oireachtas.
However, my preference is for clearly stating that power is devolved to the local authority.
I have been listening with great interest and amusement to the debate on the far side of the House; it interests me to note that the amendments are an exact copy of those tabled in the Dáil. This suggests that there is no initiative on the far side to come forward with anything new that they have a belief in the Bill or that they have absolutely no confidence in their own colleagues in the lower House.
(Interruptions.)
We had no opportunity——
This is time wasting.
Is that what Senator Byrne calls it? Time wasting?
I will be very brief; At 11.50 p.m. last night there was a call for a quorum which further limited the time. We had a vote today and we have had more time wastage. If they are serious about this, and I have listened——
We are——
Acting Chairman
Keep to the amendment.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Byrne was not in the House and he cannot accuse us of time wasting. We were here debating these amendments and he was not here.
Acting Chairman
We will have to get back to the amendments.
On a point of order, Senator Byrne sought to determine what arrangements had been made for the eventuality of any of these amendments going through, when they would go to the Dáil and how the timescale would be fitted in. He was put out of the House because he requested that information. He was not given it, and that was the reason for calling for a quorum.
I sympathise with the Minister's point of view that the operation of the House could be clogged if there was an enormous mass of regulations which require discussion and to be voted on. However, I have said that I am inclined to support what Senator Costello said, simply on the basis of distinction between the passive acceptance of regulations and their active acceptance because often Order Papers in this House are cluttered with regulations and papers laid before the House. It is obvious from time to time from the Order of Business that many Senators, including myself — I am not claiming I am any less ignorant than anybody else — are not quite aware of procedures and just glance at an Order Paper. The advantage of requiring a resolution approving of the draft to be passed would be that any such draft would stand a far greater chance of being read. Unfortunately, because of the nature of humanity, if a thing does not have to be read it slides by, almost willy nilly, unnoticed. I do not think that many of these regulations would require a debate, or great scrutiny, but at least this amendment has the value of drawing such regulations to the active attention of the House. For that reason I am happy to support it.
Senator Norris might be familiar with a well known text on constitutional law called New Despotism. He might also be familiar with a similar text The Road to Serfdom. Both texts — I am wasting the time of the House——
No.
Acting Chairman
The Minister without interruption.
——New Despotism and The Road to Serfdom dealt with the tendency at the start of this century to delegated legislation; this was the start of the delegated legislation about which we are talking, subsidiary legislation. These texts must have been reissued recently because certain people here and in the other House promoted the ideology enunciated in those texts in the last few days. However, times have changed, legislation is different and life is more complex. I agree that matters of principle, matters that affect the fundamental rights of people, the fundamental framework of law, must come before us but is somebody suggesting to me that delegated legislation should not now be a fact of life and that the minutiae of legislation in a complex democracy should somehow on a continuous basis come before the House? It is ridiculous and Senators know that.
If there were allegations of abuse or if somebody here can give me a few examples of abuse in making regulations subsequent to the primary Act being put in place, then I would give a much better hearing to what some of the Senators are saying, but nobody put forward any suggestion or allegation of abuse in this matter. What are we talking about? What are we setting out to curb? Are we trying to shout down ghosts that do not exist? Let us talk in a modern sense and let us not go back to old texts, last century stuff. We are talking about a modern democracy with primary legislation, its orders in draft on the major items, but the minutiae go before the Oireachtas by way of orders that can be annulled. Give me the examples of the orders that have been annulled by the Oireachtas in the last five years? They do not exist so we should stop pursuing ghosts like this.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- Ryan, John.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Harte and Costello; Níl, Senators Wright and S. Haughey.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 44, to delete "appear to the Minister to".
I will not elaborate on this amendment other than to say that I would like the Minister to respond to it. What I seek to do here is to delete "appear to the Minister to". Why has he used that terminology?
The effect of this section is that the regulations could include appropriate provisions. They have to seem appropriate to someone; that is what I am saying, and that is the basic reason for it. The regulations have to seem appropriate to somebody, and who better to seem appropriate to than to the decision maker? The amendment does nothing to improve the text and it could, in fact, be seen as a disimprovement. The section will, therefore, have to stand as it is because it simply comes down to, to whom should it seem appropriate. Since in normal law the buck stops at the Minister, it has to seem appropriate to him.
I strongly disagree with the Minister on this point. It is not, however, a flaw peculiar to the Minister. This phrase appears to be almost a kind of cliché of drafts, but I have already made this point with regard to a number of other Bills so I do not want to waste time. I would like once more to place on record that I see the essential differences as being one of substance. I do not think it is appropriate to say that it should just appear to the Minister, because the appearance could be illusory, it could be tendentious, it could be unreal or insubstantial and I think it would be strengthened if it said "may be appropriate", in other words it would have to be appropriate. It would not have to be a kind of charade of appropriateness and if the legislation is framed using those words, the Minister would, I believe, be at least morally required to be in a position to demonstrate that appropriateness rather than just to say it appeared to him. It could be a kind of will-o'-the-wisp. I have spoken at some length on this on previous legislation so I am not going to waste the time of the House but it is quite a reasonable distinction and a distinction of substance. It is shadow versus substance in a sense. Appearance is not enough in my opinion.
Yes, it is quite a simple matter and I think I heard the Senator expound on this on a number of occasions. In fact, there are certain Senators and Deputies, and I do not wish to be offensive in any way — who have set their minds against certain terminology in legislation and they pursue it at every opportunity.
"May" and "shall" is another example.
The Senator is quite right, of course. It is a drafting phrase and it has been there for a long time and its usage has grown into legislation and has not offended; nobody can yet point a finger to say how it has disenfranchised anybody or how it has worked against the good usage of legislation. I am one of those who ask what is the point of pursuing something like that unless you can prove where it has worked against the good intentions of the legislation. The Minister makes the regulations, the Minister in this circumstance is myself, and it has to seem appropriate to me. Who else should it seem appropriate to other than the Minister at the time?
A local authority.
That is not for local authority business.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, subsection (3) (a), to delete all words from and including "to a specified class" in line 2, down to the end of the paragraph.
This amendment would mean that regulations could only apply to local authorities generally. I would ask the Senator to recognise that in the terms we are talking about, that would be quite ridiculous. As far as amendment No. 8 is concerned——
Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 were to be taken together; amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are to be taken separately.
Amendment No. 8 would simply mean that regulations could only apply to local authorities generally and it would make no sense so far as the good implementation of legislation is concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, subsection (3), lines 6 and 7, to delete paragraph (b).
This amendment would mean that different provisions could not apply to different local authorities and the whole basis of local government law is that different legal provisions apply to the different classes of local authorities. They are not all the same; some are of different sizes, some represent counties, smaller authorities, larger authorities, town commissioners whatever. I will give a good example of this so that everybody will understand: town commissioners are not planning authorities and county councils are fire authorities but a few of the larger urban district councils are also fire authorities. Subsection (3) simply allows regulations to reflect these arrangements and to concern itself with the different classes and sizes, and whatever, of local authorities. That is the basis on which local government regulations have been made over the years and we are seeking to re-enact it here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, subsection (3), lines 8 and 9, to delete paragraph (c).
Section 3 (3) (c) provides that regulations could include provision for the giving of directions by the Minister. By virtue of the definition of "direction" in section 2 (1), all directions must be given in writing. For example, regulations dealing with the expenses of members under section 5 could allow for a direction by the Minister in a case where a specified amount, say, 13 times the average for all local authorities of a particular class, was exceeded by a local authority. This would not mean an automatic direction but simply that the power of direction could be used when specified thresholds are exceeded. It is purely a residual power to make sure that there will be no abuse of the system.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, lines 20 and 21, to delete subsection (5).
This amendment on its own would have the effect of removing the requirement that commencement orders under section 1 (10) be laid before each House. This could only be contemplated in the event of acceptance of a proposal regarding the approval of all orders and regulations which, as I have already outlined, is not acceptable. We dealt with this matter in substance earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, lines 22 to 28, to delete subsection (6).
I do not want to impose on your rulings, Sir, but in normal circumstances the person who moves an amendment usually makes the case for it. This would certainly be of help to the Minister in this instance. If the Senator made the case in favour of his amendment then I would be able to respond to it.
Maybe there is no case for it.
This is an extraordinary statement by the Minister. We have agreed to a timescale for the debate and we are trying to facilitate everyone. We want to find out the Minister's thinking behind the Bill. He is doing very well.
I get the impression from the Minister's remarks that he, too, is trying to be helpful by responding as adequately——
He is looking for an argument.
Acting Chairman
——and comprehensively as he can to the amendments which have been tabled. Of course, it is the right of Senators, under Standing Orders to move an amendment without any discussion.
As Senator Harte said, we want to facilitate the House and the other Senators who have put down amendments. There is an enormous number of amendments on the Order Paper and we want to debate as many as we can in the short time available to us. Initially we took the amendments to section 3 as a unit and spoke to them generally. Therefore, I have made most of my points on these amendments, which were put down for more or less the same purpose.
Amendment No. 13 proposes to delete section 3 (6). We want to ensure a positive approach will be adopted to all the regulations which come before both Houses for approval so that they will be properly debated.
We discussed this matter earlier and disposed of it. The proposal in section 3 (6) is the normal way of doing business at present in so far as primary legislation is concerned. Draft orders shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall have to be cleared in draft before they become regulations or annulled within 21 days. The Deputy is pursuing a matter which we have disposed of already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, lines 29 to 34, to delete subsection (7).
These amendments are in the same vein as the previous amendments. Section 3 (7) provides that the Minister may, by order, amend or revoke any order under this Act. In other words this power is being given to the Minister and not to the Oireachtas.
It deals with the absolute power being given to the Minister in this section. As I have said, this will be a dangerous development because the thrust of the Bill is towards local democracy and not ministerial power.
These amendments are related to the issue we have debated at length already. In effect, this amendment would delete section 3 (3) (c) which provides for the approval in draft of certain orders and regulations by both Houses. The Senator proposed in an earlier amendment that all orders should be subject to approval in draft. This amendment falls as a consequence of the decisions taken on earlier amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
Question: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 17 is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 3 and 4, to delete "may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as it thinks appropriate." and substitute the following:
"shall represent the interests of the local community to the maximum possible extent, shall aim to secure the maximum economic, social, environmental, recreational, cultural, community, and general development of its functional area, and shall in particular ensure that all services provided to the community are of the highest possible standard, that the environment is fully protected, and that the community is encouraged to participate to the fullest possible extent in all decisions affecting them.".
This is the most important and relevant section in the Bill. It seeks to ensure that local authorities will be stronger, more viable and independent. It also seeks to ensure that local authorities activate local interests and enterprises and by so doing make people more aware and concerned about local developments. Our amendment aims to give more power and responsibilities to local authorities so that they can play a more active role in community life.
I support amendment No. 18 which seeks to maximise the involvement of local communities in local affairs. In the interests of strengthening democracy, this is a very good thing. My amendment No. 19 was somewhat scathingly referred to earlier as one of the "must/shall" variety. There are occasions when it is important to strengthen the tone of a Bill. What we are seeking to do is make something mandatory which is just exhortatory in the Bill. The Bill states that the local authority may for the purpose of giving effect to that subsection do various things, whereas what I seek to do is to make it a requirement that they ascertain and communicate with other local authorities and public authorities and so on. It would be a waste of time to go read the whole amendment which seeks to strengthen and require local authorities not just simply to leave it to a judgment.
The Bill is a Bill to amend and extend. It does not purport to provide any more finance. Without finance we are only pretending to give powers. It is like giving a person a rifle with only blanks to fire. It is a toothless Bill. What we want to do, in effect, is to extend it to this degree and in subsequent legislation the Minister will be able to bring in some means of allowing local authorities to raise more finance to add to their original funds and the support from central fund. That is what we are trying to do. The Bill talks about powers and about extending and amending powers but at the same time it does not provide for finance to help them to give effect to these powers. The amendment should at least draw the Minister out on the question of whether at any stage he intends to do anything about the funding of local authorities to enable them to exercise their powers.
This is one of the most important amendments on the list of amendments because it deals with the functions of local authorities. If we are extending the functions and truly devolving power to local authorities we must make them responsible for their area. A vague statement that a local authority "may" represent the interests of the local community is not reforming legislation. Local authorities are elected to represent and they must. Senator Norris referred to the fact that some cold water was thrown on the notion of the difference between "may" and "must". It is a highly important distinction. "May" is optional; "must" is obligatory. If we mean what we are talking about in reforming local authorities we must ensure that they do truly represent the interests. To do that we must state what they must do, their duties and their liabilities, and then go on to list those. The amendment states the requirement as a basic principle of obligation and secondly, states what local authorities must address. The amendment is crucial.
Usually I find myself agreeing with Senator John Ryan on legislation. I am on record on most of legislation as agreeing with Senator Ryan. However, I do not understand why he wants recreational, cultural, community, general development and environmental listed. On the "may" and "must" point made by my esteemed friend, Senator Norris, there is no "may" or "must" when one is serving on a local authority whether one is within one's own boundaries, as mentioned earlier, or whether one spreads one's wings further. If one is a good local representative one looks after the electorate.
I am surprised at Senator Ryan asking that we should include each area because it is what he does in north Tipperary and what I, and my colleagues, do in Clare. I do not think we need include each word. In fact, if the Minister introduced specific wording Senators would absolutely slaughter him.
I would welcome it.
I do not think the amendment is needed, and I say that as one who is a firm believer in local government and local authorities. This section deals with the functions of local authorities. I do not think the amendment is necessary and I am afraid I cannot see my way to supporting the Senator on it although I have done when other legislation was going through the House.
I appreciate the support I received from another Senator from Munster who represents a different constituency. The words "may represent the local community" are not sufficiently strong. If we are to inculcate the idea of a local democracy in the elected representatives and the managerial system at local authority level "may represent" is not sufficiently strong. It does not indicate from the top that we are interested in having a viable local authority. The reason I spell out the different interests and different needs of the local community is that I want to specify the different interests and objectives in a local authority area. I regret if what I said has offended Senator Honan.
No, I am not offended.
I have spent 30 years on local authorities and I have a good deal of experience of them. If the Bill before us is supposed to be a reforming Bill to strengthen the local authority system I cannot see how the first sentence in section 5, "may represent the interests of the community" is strong enough. Our reason for putting in a stronger amendment is to make section 5 a viable vibrant part of a local authority Bill.
I have to oppose the amendment as presented by Senator Ryan and his colleagues. He is attempting to create legislation that will get rid of functions. Those of us who are members of local authorities know that certain activities and interests we would wish to develop are excluded from our brief because of the legislation we are working under. The words "may represent the interests of the local community" on their own, may give a false impression but if one continues through to "in such manner as it thinks appropriate" one sees the broad scope of what is involved. In the past local authority members could not become involved in tourism; it was not in their brief. They could not become involved in any great developments, it was not their territory. How does Senator Ryan and his colleagues know but that in 12 months time, if we include this in the Bill, and have specific responsibilities in specific areas there may be up to ten different areas involved and we can be told politely as we were in the past; "That is not in the Bill so it is not in your brief." The Minister's input is that it "may represent interests of the local community in such manner as it thinks appropriate". That is very broad and is exactly what I would want. I would not want it tied up as it would be if this amendment was accepted. I have found to my horror on several occasions when we tried to develop tourism and so on that we were excluded and were intruding on somebody else's brief. I cannot support the amendment and I ask my colleagues not to support it because it would take us back to what we had and what we now want to get rid of. We in local authorities want a broad brief so that we can take on any development or any interest that we consider appropriate to the communities we serve.
My amendment would have been better if, instead of "must" I used the word "shall". It would be inconceiveable that a local authority would represent a community in a manner that they thought was inappropriate. My amendment No. 19 is less significant and less accurately worded than amendment No. 18. I take the point Senator Finneran made, that it might appear to be a limiting factor, that it restricted the activities of the council to just these specified areas, but I do not think that that need necessarily be the legal impact of it. I understand that the intention of this amendment, of which I approve, is to headline specific activities and draw them to the attention of local authorities. They should represent the appropriate interests. Leaving in the word "may" implies that there may be certain cases in which they may decide not to represent the interests or may decide not to represent the appropriate interests and so on. It is a small point and I do not honestly believe that the country is riddled with local authorities who are deliberately and perversely going to go out and act against the interests of their local community.
Senator Finneran has mistaken what is in this amendment. It provides that the local authority "shall represent the interests of the local community to the maximum possible extent, shall aim to secure the maximum economic, social environmental, recreational, cultural, community, and general development of its functional area", and so on. Most of what is there is included in section 6 (1) (b) of the Bill which reads:
For the purposes of this section a measure, activity or thing shall be deemed to promote the interests of the local community if it promotes, directly or indirectly, the social, economic, environmental, recreational, cultural, community or general development...
We have broadened and extended what is in the Bill. In that sense we are extending the provisions, which the Minister has already indicated is his intention. So we are helping him to better his reforming legislation. This is very appropriate.
The other function of this reforming legislation is to give greater powers to local authorities. If you are going to give greater powers to the local authorities you must indicate what they are obliged to do. You must say local authorities have a responsibility in this area, therefore they shall represent the interests of the local community. We are doing precisely what the Minister has said is his intention.
Let us not confuse the section with another section. Section 5 is the representational role. Section 6 is the functional role. Let us not apply the criteria of the functions to the representational side. That is a fundamental mistake and I suggest Senator Costello might accept that. Section 5 is a very important section. As Senator Finneran rightly said, over many years when Senators were making representations whether it was about particular items or to public bodies such as RTE or whatever they were often told, "Hands off, it is none of your business, you did not have the statutory right to make a representation". It is to provide that statutory representational role that I included this and it is a very fundamental section on behalf of the furtherance of local democracy. Now local authorities will be entitled to bring the local view to other public authorities and it gives them a status with other authorities that they did not have previously. They were only making comments in the past at meetings on sufferance and that is the only way they can do it at present. A public body will not now be able to ignore the representation a local authority will be able to make. I deliberately wanted to spell it out in clear and simple terms and that is the way it is stated in section 5. Senators opposite are not quite satisfied with that and I wonder why. In spite of what they say about local democracy, they want this section to be mandatory and to provide that it "shall" or "must" instead of "may". I do not accept that. That is not good thinking in pursuance of the intention now purely on representational terms.
I am in favour of letting a local council carry out this new function in such a manner as they think appropriate themselves, which is what the section provides. Why do we impose restrictions? Let us at least clear that line and agree among us all that we do not want to put restrictions in, we do not want the section to be rigid. Putting in any of the matter suggested by some of the Senators puts the rigidity into it. If we were to spell out what they must do under the new section we are really weakening the whole overall effect of this section. We are in effect introducing different categories of representational roles and I do not want to do that. What is the top priority to one council might be of no consequence to another, so why are we mandating them to give an equal priority to what their attitude might be in any one circumstance? Local authorities should be able to decide themselves what representational role they will apply. This is an enabling section. It was never designed to force a local authority to do any particular thing. That is a matter for local elected members to decide for themselves and that is the way it should be left. I recommend that to the Senators.
At no stage had I any intention of advocating compulsion. I would like to ensure that local authorities have rational objectives to serve the community in a much better way than previously and to enhance the role they can play. I do not believe in compelling anyone to do anything. I wish to serve the best interests of the community.
For that reason I suggest that this should not be pursued because it is putting a mandatory role into the section which the Senator himself does not wish to have involved.
Perhaps the Minister is confusing another amendment with my amendment which is not one I would press as I do not think it is justified, having heard the discussion. It is appropriate to change "may" to "shall". "Must" would not be my preferred option at the moment. I am extremely interested in one thing the Minister said, and perhaps it was a little Freudian slip but it indicates to me one of the reasons I do not like the Bill as it is. The instance the Minister gave was RTE.
I beg your pardon?
RTE. It is indicative that that was the first——
Take the ESB then.
I would prefer to take the one the Minister chose.
I am offering the Senator the ESB.
This Minister is a very good debater, he is very shrewd and he has the necessary skills to challenge and say something on the spur of the moment without producing an instance. In debate that is not always easy particularly when we are dealing with companies and the lengthy history of the evolution of legislation. However, on the other hand it is revealing when the Minister says that local authorities make representations to RTE. Section 5 (2) (a) states:
ascertain and communicate to other local authorities and public authorities the views of the local community...
It is not specified how those views will be ascertained. In the light of the distinguished leadership of a previous Taoiseach from the Minister's own party, they may simply feel that all they needed to do was to look into their own hearts where they would find engraved, no doubt in green letters, precisely what the people felt. There is no machinery here for consultation whatever. The Bill states "they ascertain". How do they ascertain those views? I do not look forward to a situation where local authorities might incite themselves into a state of frenzy against RTE. This Government have had a few good bashes at RTE already. The instance the Minister gave was highly significant.
The notion of representing the interests of a local community to the maximum possible extent covers just about everything and knocks what Senator Finneran said out through the window. If you are doing something to the maximum possible extent, it surely includes every possible, positive eventuality. If Senator Finneran felt that on previous legislation he was precluded from dealing with tourism, this, obviously, would not be the case if the amendment in the names of Senators Upton, Harte, Costello and J. Ryan were accepted. If I could withdraw my own amendment or change it I would. I can anticipate the Minister's argument and I can see a good argument as to why my amendment should not be accepted so I will not push it.
By way of a passing comment to the Senator, I am pleased he recognised the distinguished leaders of the political party I support, that they played an important role and that they were able to recognise what was important, so far as legislation and other matters in the community were concerned. I know the Senator suports that. All I am trying to establish here is the primary role of local representatives which is enshrined in the Bill as now framed. To do the other thing would be to show a total lack of appreciation of the basic purpose of the provision. It is designed simply to give statutory recognition to a fundamental purpose of all local authorities, that is, to be able to represent their own community in any way they wish and to whichever authority, public or otherwise, they may wish to address their representations. I am pleased Senator Norris will withdraw his amendment and I ask the House to accept the section as it stands.
The Minister indicated that this is an extremely important section. This is the most important item in that section because it defines the role of the local authority. Whether the role of the local authority will be defined in vague terms or whether it will be stated that the local authority shall represent the interests of the local community is what is at stake. If we are reforming the local authorities we should state their role. They are elected by the community in their local electoral area and their responsibility is to represent the interests of those who elect them. I cannot for the life of me see how the Minister has problems with the words: "shall represent the interests of the local community to the maximum possible extent". That is all that is requested in the amendment. That, to my mind, is a necessary definition. So far we have not defined the role of the "local authority" and it behoves us to do so.
Secondly, this amendment states that the local authority "shall aim to secure the maximum economic, social, environmental, recreational,..." and so on. In a nutshell the amendment is determining, describing and defining the representational role of the local authority and also stating the aims and objectives. I do not see how we can move from this because what is left in the Bill, in terms of the functions of the local authorities as described in the Bill, does not have very much meaning unless we put it in the terms described in this amendment. This is the core of the amendment. It is not good enough for the Minister to say there is a misconception on our part, that we are mixing up the functions with the representation. We are stating our perception of the primary role of the local authority in relation to the local community and its aims and objectives.
I have a certain sympathy with Senator Costello. We all agree that this is probably the most important section of the Bill. There is a basic difference in approach and possibly also in principle and, perhaps, our objectives are hopeful in that the trend, both in this amendment and previous amendments which Senator Costello and his colleagues have tabled, is to rigidly define the "local community" and now to attempt to rigidly define the functions of a local authority even in regard to representation. The most important thing for local authorities is to get away from this rigidity: this is the 19th century Victorian rigidity of very tight definitions that tied the hands of the local authorities. I do not doubt that all the suggestions made in this rather long paragraph are all excellent suggestions and, indeed, I would agree with many of them. Section 5 (1) states:
A local authority may represent the interests of the local community in such manner as it thinks appropriate.
This gives this broad democratic opportunity to the local authority to represent the interests as it thinks appropriate and members of the authority are the elected representatives of the people. The moment you start — with whatever good intentions — to define it, to restrict it, to tie it down, you are likely to end up in the same situation in which we find ourselves so often in local authorities where we cannot do certain things because the power is not provided for in the Act.
I would make one final comment and I do not intend to intervene again. I am pleased the Senators have recognised that sections 3 and 5 are critical sections in this legislation and they are worth teasing out, as we have done. It is not appropriate, as the amendment seems to suggest, that this inherent characteristic of democratic local government should be couched in terms of a mandatory obligation in the same way as you might have a mandatory obligation to provide a particular service. I would go further and say that if one were to pursue this amendment it would indicate a lack of confidence in the local authorities, because not only does it want to express that their representational role is mandatory but it seeks to spell out in this alternative section in minute detail what they should do towards that end. I would add that some of the items listed in the amendment to which Senator Conroy referred would not be appropriate.
It was never intended to just list the various functional roles. That is not the intention of this section. It is a statutory confirmation of the general representational role and character of local authorities, and that should not be couched in a mandatory formula as it defeats the purpose. Consequently, I must insist that Senators reconsider their position with a view to allowing the section to stand.
Acting Chairman
Is amendment No. 18 being pressed? The argument has been exhausted at this stage. I will not prevent Senators from continuing to make a contribution but I think the argument in relation to this amendment has been exhausted.
It is mandatory that local authorities represent the people who elect them. They are elected for that purpose. That is their mandate. I do not agree with the Minister as regards watering down the provision to state that a local authority may represent the interests of the local community. Secondly, there should be some indication of the aims to secure that representation, and that is provided in the amendment. We are not hung up on the wording but certainly I would like the Minister to consider this matter on Report Stage. Otherwise, there is no question but that we will have to press the amendment.
Without seeking to cut the Senator short, the Minister is not for turning or for moving.
I would like to make one observation. The Minister said previously that he would be interested in examples. I do not share the total enthusiasm of the Minister and most Senators on the operations of local authorities. They are quite capable of acting against the interests of their constituents. There is a very good example of this in today's issue of The Irish Times. Certainly, as one reads the article dealing with rezoning it seems quite clear that what are being served are very considerable commercial interests, and that this is being done in a venial way by councillors who have been elected to represent particular——
I must object to the Senator's allegations about county councillors. It is appalling and I ask the Senator to withdraw that comment.
This is an appalling statement from a person who is not a member of a local authority. I suggest that the Senator should get elected to a local authority and make his case there. To come into this House with privilege and speak like that about local authority members, and the collective decision of an elected council, is totally inappropriate. I too ask the Senator to withdraw that remark.
I understand it is intended to change the entire structure of these rezoning proposals so that there will be a requirement regarding a 75 per cent majority and that indicates some degree of concern. There is very widespread concern.
Will the Senator withdraw the insulting remark he made?
Acting Chairman
I do not think we should go down that road. I have asked if the amendment is being pressed. I am making a ruling that we have exhausted the argument in relation to these amendments. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
I do not intend to let this matter drop just like that. A grave insult has been directed at local authority members regarding the collective decisions of a local authority. It has been done under the privilege of this House by a person who is not a member of a local authority, who does not have the inside knowledge and who, in an earlier statement, said that local authorities often work against their constituents. I let that comment go, but as a Member of this House I cannot let the latest comment go.
Acting Chairman
Thank you, Senator. The Senator, and Senator Conroy, have put their objections to Senator Norris's contribution on the record of the House. As I said earlier, I do not wish to go down that road. I am mainly concerned with getting this legislation through. As this amendment is being pressed I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 19
9; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ryan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Harte and Costello.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
As amendment No. 18 has been defeated, amendment No. 19 cannot be moved. Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 are related and may be taken together.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 6, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
We covered the ground before in relation to "may" and "shall" so there is no sense in rehashing all those arguments. We believe strongly that "shall" should be inserted there. Section 5 (2) reads:
a local authority may for the purposes of giving effect to that subsection—
(a) ascertain and communicate to other local authorities and public authorities...
That would be part and parcel of its normal operation. It should ascertain and communicate the views of the local community in relation to these matters which affect the interests of the functional area. We believe the word "shall" should be inserted rather than "may".
In amendment No. 21 we want to delete "as respects which those other authorities perform functions and". Certainly the wording there is extremely convoluted. I would like the Minister to elaborate on its tautology. It would seem to be sufficient to say "in relation to matters which affect the interests of the functional area of the authority and the local community." The phrasing we asked to be delete should not have been there in the first place.
Finally, in amendment No. 22 we are asking to insert after "affairs" the following "by managing its affairs in such a way as to promote open and accountable local government, by encouraging the maximum participation in all decisions affecting the local community, and by ensuring the highest possible awareness of all decisions." That is a proper and relevant matter to be included as a function of the local authority. These are part of the areas of representation.
The emphasis should be on amendment No. 22 because in relation to local authorities people are beginning to take us for granted and perceive that we are a silent group not participating properly in the democratic system. Amendment No. 22 would indicate to the public that the local authority are viable, active and accountable for their actions. It is a very important amendment. We are trying to strengthen the local government system and this amendment would have the effect of ensuring that people would be aware that there is accountability at local government level and that my encouraging such decisions and activities it would appear that the elected representatives would be encouraging local authorities to fully participate in all the affairs at local level. That is the amendment about which I am concerned and most anxious.
We have gone through the proposal to substitute "shall" for "may" on a number of occasions. It would not be appropriate because the purpose of subsection (5) (2) is to indicate the sort of action which a local authority can make pursuant to their representational role. The amendment will just make the provision far too restrictive. That has been my case before and I made my point on that matter. In amendment No. 21 the deletion makes no sense since, taken in conjunction with the mandatory nature of the other amendments, it could place an obligation on local authorities to communicate views to other bodies on matters in which they had no function.
In amendment No. 22 the suggestion is another example of intent to spell out in the Bill how local authorities could manage their affairs. I am trying to get away from that in the general observations I made previously. This sort of approach in against the whole thrust of the local government reform. That is a basic fundamental attitude of the Minister and of the legislation; it has to be retained to accommodate the reform procedures in the open way we want. In it this sort of detail is inflexible and I want to get away from the rigidity about which we spoke previously in spelling out in any great detail what they may do.
I want local authorities to be able to decide for themselves; to give them the full democratic flexibility of their role. That inflexibility issue goes back to Victorian times. That was the Victorian approach — to corral their attitudes so that they could not do things except under very direct and strict control. I want to get away from that in local government law and that is what we are trying to get away from in this section. I ask the Senators to recognise that.
It was suggested earlier on another amendment that there was a form of compulsion. In this amendment I am not trying to emphasise "mandatory", I am trying to encourage local democracy. This amendment would indicate to the public that there is accountability at local level. I regret that I have to differ from the Minister on this. There is no intention of compulsion. I am trying to outline an open democratic system, where public accountability at local level would not alone be seen and explained but, to all intents and purposes, at local level people would see that there is a vibrant, independent local authority responsible for their actions and held accountable to the public for what they have done. I want to make it very clear to the Minister that the amendment does not suggest any Victorian ways; I am not going back to the 19th century. I am trying to bring people into the system. This amendment would mean more public accountability and would make people aware of what we are doing at local level. The Minister's reading of my amendment is not in line with my thinking.
I would like to make this observation with regard to a point of drafting. I would be very happy to see the deletion of the phrase "as respects which those other authorities perform functions and" on a grammatical and stylistic basis because it is unattractive and scarcely literate due to the phrase "as respects which"; it should be "in respect to which". I say that so that the persons charged with drafting might perhaps present us with beautiful English in future.
The Minister does not feel obliged to respond to that except to say he notes what the professor says. It will be borne in mind in future drafting of similar legislative provisions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 9, subsection (2), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) enter into a partnership arrangement with voluntary sector community groups with a view to planning and implementing responses to needs and issues identified in areas and communities of special need.".
This amendment adds another paragraph to the general scheme of things. It is clear — and becoming increasingly obvious — that no amendments will be accepted today. I embark on this course of action in an almost hopeless spirit of gallantry. I am sure the Minister would sympathise with the intention even though I very much doubt that he will take the amendment on board. That was clear early this morning even on the Second Stage speech, for example, of Senator Farrell who spoke about his work with alcoholics in the community and so on.
This is intended to give a kind of specificity to the relations between the local authorities and particular community groups, especially voluntary groups. The idea of partnership ought to be welcomed and it will strengthen local democracy. There are many excellent voluntary bodies working in the city of Dublin, and in the other local authority areas, and they are particularly sensitive to and particularly capable of identifying the needs of sections of the community. I could instance, of course, the travellers, the gay community, and people who work with the problem of drug abuse. Again, perhaps, this is not the correct moment to go into an extended treatment of this, but I am sure the Minister is aware that in Dublin we are now at least facing a new drug epidemic of heroin smoking. Excellent people and excellent organisations are working to try to deal with this. It would be useful to have in the legislation a section which encourages local authorities to enter into partnership with voluntary organisations to help to identify the issues involved and then to implement a line of action. Again, in order to expedite the matter, I will not speak at length about it. I am sure the Minister understands the thinking behind this amendment and I am also sure that he and his advisers have noticed that there are a number of other amendments which have similar wording, for example, amendment No. 34.
In conclusion, this is one of a number of amendments submitted to me which I read in conjunction with the Bill and thought were worthwhile. It was submitted by the people who run Pavel Point, the travellers' centre in North Great Charles Street, off Mountjoy Square, where excellent work is being done.
I support the amendment which I consider to be an excellent one. It would add a new paragraph to the Bill to allow the local authorities to enter into a partnership arrangement with community groups. As we are all aware, marvellous work is being done by a wide range of voluntary groups and organisations. It is appropriate, therefore, that the local authorities should get involved in a partnership with those groups who are not in receipt of State funding. I accept that it is difficult to allocate resources for all activities, but it is desirable that the local authorities should engage in activities involving the handicapped, the deprived and sporting organisations in the interests of the local community.
I am sure the purpose of the amendment is to ensure consultation and discussion between the local authorities and local community groups, such as residents' associations without the need to enter into a contractual arrangement. For example, in Dún Laoghaire discussions would take place with, say, an enterprise centre to see how the corporation could be of assistance. I hope, however, that there will always be consultation. The question which must be asked is whether it is necessary to enter such a partnership arrangement to achieve the aim behind the amendment but, as I said, it is very important that there be a consultative process.
The Minister would like to join with other speakers in expressing support for voluntary groups. I regard this as a very important element of the legislation as framed. The legislation is not anti-voluntary or local groups. Indeed, it is pro-local and voluntary groups in every way possible. There should be consultation between the local community and their elected representatives but I am concerned to maintain the superiority of the elected representatives having regard to the fact they have been elected to represent all the groups in the community. It should be a matter for them to decide how best to involve the local community in deciding on what to do on their behalf. Section 6 will be of help in achieving this. Those matters which are not covered by section 6 certainly ought to be covered very adequately by section 37.
I intend to encourage local authorities to avail of the provisions of section 37 to involve local community groups in the various committees attached to the local authorities, but I want the local authorities to do this on their own. They will have adequate powers under the Bill to enter into whatever arrangements they wish. The expert advisory group who advised me on these matters state at paragraph 7:15 that it should be a matter for the individual local authority to make the necessary structural arrangements, for example, joint or open meetings, to accommodate the voluntary groups to which Senator Norris referred. That work is being done. This is not the first time this work has been recognised in legislation, but at least it is recognised that community groups have a role to play. The local authorities should not be prevented from involving them in any way they wish. That is the reason I am recommending that the section remain as it is.
There is absolutely no conflict between the recommendation of the expert advisory group to which the Minister just referred and my amendment. The amendment states that the local authorities "may" enter into a partnership arrangement. This is the kind of amendment which the Minister if we had more time and the parliamentary arrangements were slightly different, might feel inclined to include.
What I am saying is that we do not need to enact legislation to achieve what he is looking for. Some Senators criticised me for taking too many powers in the Bill, but in the next breath they criticised me for not determining what should happen in a local community. What I am saying to the Senator is that this is a local matter and it should be left to the elected representatives to decide — Senator Norris referred to this earlier — on how best to run their communities. They should seek to involve all groupings in the community. We cannot legislate for this and the local authorities should have discretion.
The local authorities do have discretion. This is a discretionary power. The amendment would not force the local authorities to do this——
That is correct.
——but it would enable and encourage them to do so and, psychologically, it would give status to voluntary bodies in certain circumstances.
We do not need to legislate for that.
It would be a good idea to include this. I am not sure if this is possible under existing legislation, if the Minister can reassure me, fine but it would be a very healthy and positive thing and have the effect of giving some degree of recognition to the role played by voluntary bodies. May I again point out to the Minister that I was urged to put down the amendment by such a voluntary body?
Of course, the local authority would not be required to take into partnership any group that simply set themselves up. They would have the discretionary power to determine which groups were of principal significance in particular areas and they would be encouraged by this section to bring them on board. Finally may I say that I was a little confused by some of the Minister's remarks where he spoke about the fact that he was urged not to take on too much power; that he was chastised for taking on too much power earlier on, and now he was being incited to take on power. There is no power for the Minister in this section. The Minister is confused.
The only power the Minister seeks in this legislation — it has not been summarised before but I will do so now — is to give power to local authorities.
May I point out that this seeks to give powers to local authorities; it is not giving power to the Minister. It is actually empowering and vitalising local authorities in my opinion. However, I do not want to spend the whole afternoon on an amendment whose value I am convinced of but I am also quite clear in my mind that it is not going to be accepted.
Senator Norris is right in saying that what is being done is devolving power to the local authority, and is not in any sense giving power to the Minister. The whole intention is that it be given directly to the local authority. We suggest that the local authority be pointed in the direction of certain activities that they should perform. This section states that a local authority may ascertain and communicate with other local authorities, facilitate and promote interest and involvement in local government affairs; promote, organise or assist the carrying out of research, surveys or studies and so on.
Another important area of activity involves the work of the voluntary sector community groups. We consider, and Senator Norris is proposing, that the work and the role of these groups within the community should be promoted and encouraged. The way to do that is to emphasise it; it is not necessary to put it into the legislation. Obviously, a local authority can do it and there is nothing to stop a local authority doing it but if we really want to underline the importance of this sector, namely the voluntary community group sector, the way to do that is by putting in a reference to it in the legislation. I am sure the Minister is not going to accept the amendment, nevertheless it would have been a valuable amendment if it could have been added to the section.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
No, I think it would be a waste of time.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 9, subsection (2), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) conduct referenda on issues of local interest, including referenda sought by petition of a reasonable number of persons normally resident in the functional area of the local authority, and including referenda on proposals to raise funds through local contributions for specific purposes (the purpose, the amount of money to be raised and spent, and the method of collection to be specifed on all voting papers).".
This amendment seeks, and we want also to emphasise another area of activity where the local authority should be involved and the manner in which it should be involved. It suggests that we should conduct referenda on issues of local interest, including referenda sought by petition and so on. The local authority should determine the importance of certain matters by conducting a referendum rather than simply considering the matter and going ahead with it and finding out later that there is a lot of local opposition to it, after the residents and pressure groups organise to protest. We see this happening all of the time. The opinion or views of the people should be directly sought through local referenda on specific developments contemplated by the local authority. This is broadening the concept of local democracy. I urge the Minister to consider adding this to the representational functions specified in the legislation because it it totally in line with the spirit of the legislation which the Minister enunciated and would certainly improve local democracy within the local authority.
The holding of a referendum locally on every issue is an interesting concept. Without seeming to offend, I ask the Senator whether he really thinks it is a practical idea. It is not practical to hold referenda on every tittle-tattle or every item local authorities would wish to get involved in. We are talking about an enormously cumbersome process. To hold a couple of referenda every week, one would have to consider the cost and the organisation involved. I do not believe the Senators are pursuing this except for the sake of putting down an amendment. They want it to be mandatory, and suggest that local authorities could not do something without asking the people.
We elect people to the authority and give them the power and the authority to do something and, before they are allowed to do it, they have to go back and ask the people to decide by way of referendum everything that they wish to do. I do not think that is practical.
The Senator did not pursue this but I am going to because what he is talking about here applies to the question of raising funds. We would have referenda when the council want to build something. He suggests that the council should set out the cost and ask people to say yes or no. I know what would happen to many of the ballot papers, if a referendum was held every second day. I do not believe this is a way of raising funds for local authorities and, rather than making little of the suggestion, I ask the Senator to reconsider it.
As the Minister said, it is an interesting suggestion.
I am pleased about one thing, that it did not originate from the Senator. I would have a lot more to say to him if it had.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 9, lines 20 to 24, to delete subsection (4).
Section 5 (4) states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on a local authority, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which it would not otherwise be subject.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we should want to take away from the local authority a liability or a duty to perform their duties.
We elect local authorities to represent the interests of the people and to perform duties and activities. If we say that neither directly or indirectly should there by any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings it means that we are saying that a local authority may or may not do something but they have no duty to do it or no liability if they are neglectful. This is a bad subsection. The least we expect of a local authority is to perform their duty and we expect them, like every other citizen, to be liable if they are neglectful in the performance of their duty.
I am unhappy with a specific reference which would absolve the local authority from carrying out their duty to the extent that we would have thought it would be necessary for doing it. Of course in the context of the original amendment I tabled suggesting that a local authority "shall" represent rather that a local authority "may", there would be a lead-on implication. I have reservations about that subsection being retained.
This is just a continuation of the mandatory terms that the Senator insists on placing on the representational role of local authorities. It is turning the process. What is intended to be an underlying and enhancing of local authority status is being turned into a negative instrument which, I should emphasise, would impinge directly on the elected members since the representational functions under the section are vested in them. That is very clearly stated in the Bill and has been voted on. The representational role will be theirs so why should we put any restrictions or mandate on them in that regard? I cannot accept the amendment.
We have a basic difference of opinion on this matter. Local authorities are elected to represent their communities and, therefore, have a duty to make representations. To absolve them of this duty does not seem to be in line with good legislation. If local authorities have certain functions we have to be very careful in reforming legislation to ensure that those functions are carried out in a dutiful and proper manner. To insert a provision which states that there is no form of duty or liability on them, either directly or indirectly, is almost dangerous. If the section were deleted there would implicitly be a duty on them to carry out their functions. Will the provision absolving them of this duty encourage them not to carry out their functions? This seems to be an unnecessary statement of smugness which should not be part and parcel of legislation which deals with the representational role of local authorities.
I hardly think it is smugness. The intent of the Deputy's amendment indicates a lack of confidence in local authorities. I would not like to pursue the matter with the Deputy in that fashion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 26 is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related and may be discussed together.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 9, subsection (1) (a), line 27, to delete "it considers".
This amendment would strengthen section 6 (1) (a) by providing that local authorities should do such things in accordance with law as necessary and not as they think necessary. This is a more objective statement of the situation than an opinion, which is a lesser statement. My proposal would strengthen this section.
Amendment No. 28 is similar to Deputy Norris's amendment in relation to the voluntary sector. Amendment No. 28 provides that:
Any measure, activity or thing which promotes the interests of any under-privileged, or handicapped section of the community shall be deemed to promote the interests of the local community as a whole...
This again would strengthen our commitment to the deprived, less well-off and handicapped people in our society. It would be an appropriate additional statement of general competence for local authorities. Section 6 (1) (b) refers to the promotion of social, economic and environmental measures. It would be very useful as an indicator of our commitment as a society to the less well-off, under-privileged and handicapped that we would seek to include them as one of the groups who should be promoted by local authorities.
My original point about "may" versus "shall" still stands. This is part and parcel of the discussion on many sections. Amendment No. 27 seems designed to restrict the discretion of local authorities, which is one of the key objectives of the general competence provision. I think all of us support the general competence provision which will give local authorities the right for the first time ever to do things on behalf of their communities. I want to give local authorities the discretion to which I referred earlier.
I do not think the acceptance of amendment No. 28 which deals with sectional interests would serve any useful purpose. Worthy as the intention behind the proposal may seem at first glance, it would serve to make the general competence provision unduly specific and defeat the general purpose of it. Moreover, this amendment shows a certain lack of confidence in local authorities. I have always had great confidence in local authorities, having been a member of a local authority for a long number of years. I believe all local authorities have been waiting for a general competence provision so that they will be able to do the things they have been asking to do for a long time. I am not aware of any need to impose a statutory prohibition on local authorities so that they will not take measures which would promote sectional interests at the expense of the under-privileged or others. The intent behind the amendment is questionable and is not what it might seem at first glance. Consequently, I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.
The Minister has a wonderful facility for turning around the intention of what I said. I am not in any way suggesting that I have a lack of confidence in the integrity or capacity of local authorities to perform their duties. I am trying to ensure that we, as a Legislature, point out to local authorities certain areas of major critical and central concern. The Minister has also done this. Indeed the Barrington advisory committee have pointed out a number of areas where the general competence of the local authorities should be operational.
Section 6 (1) (b) refers to "social, economic, environmental, recreational, cultural, community or general development of the functional area...". While the sectors referred to in my amendment could, by extension, be dealt with under any of these headings, we need to include a specific reference to them in the Bill. The under-privileged, handicapped and minority groupings represent a large segment of our society. For example, there are almost one million poor people in our society. These people and various minorities, such as those referred to by Senator Norris, may not be adequately dealt with, consulted or protected by our community at large. We should provide that local authorities will have a special competence to deal with these groups. I am not in any way seeking to question the integrity or competence of local authorities in the performance of their duties.
I take the Senator's point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 29 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 9, subsection (2) (a), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subparagraph:
"(i) raise revenue through local contribution for specific purposes, provided that the purpose, the amount of revenue, and the method of collection shall have been accepted by the local community in a referendum,".
This amendment is similar to amendment No. 24 which proposed that local authorities should be empowered to hold referenda. Amendment No. 30 proposes that a local authority, having embarked on a referendum with the goodwill of the community, should be able to make a collection for specific purposes. It would be in the context of some outstanding or some specific essential project.
I am not sure of the validity of the amendment but I can see what is behind it. It probably underlines the lack in this legislation in relation to any revenue raising role, and the whole question of trying to run the car without any petrol. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the timescale envisaged by him in relation to further legislation being brought forward to provide for proper financing of local authorities — maybe he will not always be the big bad wolf leaving his children without any food. We should be looking at the timescale for the introduction of further legislation.
I made some comment about this before. If I understand the amendment correctly — I have looked carefully at it — a local authority could hold a local referendum and, with a majority in favour, could impose a tax. A system like that would run into some difficulties in practice. It is extremely unlikely that a local authority would get unanimous support from the local community, for example, for a scheme of local contributions, say, by landowners for road repairs. What would they do then? Would they impose the contributions on the dissenters? How do they scale the contributions? How do they enforce the collection? Any system of taxation needs to be underpinned by a detailed legislative framework covering assessment, levying, collection, enforcement, etc. I am afraid this amendment falls far short on that score. What kind of fundraising has the Senator in mind? What basis of assessment has he in mind? A poll tax, or if not, a new form of rates or property tax? Whatever the Senator has in mind, according to this amendment, it would have to be spelled out in a ballot paper. It is hard enough to get people to vote but if you are asking them to vote to tax themselves and to say yes to it, you would have some chance. I do not believe this has been thought through. It is a nice idea to ask local people to contribute as they do to, say, advancing the school property — voluntary contributions are made over and above that which comes by way of State grant to provide extra facilities — but surely a local authority will not have a referendum every time they want a contribution from the community? The hand would be in the fire every week. I would ask the Senator to take his hand out of that fire if at all possible now.
It is said that we are reduced to this in an effort to find some way to get funding for essential services. That is the unfortunate situation we are in. The second amendment relates to the funds made available from the national lottery for specific purposes provided that that purpose shall have been accepted by the local community in a referendum. I am thinking about some areas that are at present the subject of voluntary contributions such as sporting facilities, whether it is a playing field or club. It really is a matter where the local authority may or may not grant-aid the development. In practice the local community is paying out of its own pocket. This is sad.
Amendments of this nature should not have to be put down. The national lottery, however, is not a very satisfactory body to be looking to for money in the first place. The essential thing, of course, is that the Bill should have financial provisions, but there is not a single financial provision in the Bill. The Minister knows that neither I nor my party is in favour of having this sort of ad hoc Mickey Mouse funding as a major source of funding for local authorities for any community requirement.
Deputy Howlin will be cross with the Senator when he hears that he said his amendment was a Mickey Mouse one.
I want to emphasise the need for financial provisions. That is really what this is all about: it is about having funding for the necessary community projects that at present are largely funded from voluntary contributions.
If the local authority require a contribution or if they wish to get a local contribution for a particular item, they do not need this legislation to do it. They already have the provision in the Local Government (Acceptance of Gifts) Act, 1945, which allows a local authority to adopt schemes for the acceptance of gifts aimed at civic improvements. If that is what the Senator requires, then the provision is already there in law to accommodate what he has in mind.
My problem is that while the provision may be there the funding is not, and this is a different type of provision.
What is not there is the interest of local elected representatives to pursue it. That is a different matter.
I am doing my best.
Join one of them and find out how little interest they have in pursuing matters where demands are put on their communities.
We will wait for the next local elections.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 9, subsection (2) (a), after line 46, to insert the following new subparagraph:
(v) Provide a local archives service.
This is a very worthwhile amendment. It is not one that came to me, Senator Cosgrave or Deputy Howlin out of the blue; it came to us from the Society of Archivists. They presented a very valid argument that there should be a local archive service for local authorities. There is an incredible amount of work done by the local authority but virtually all of it is unorganised. There is no library facility or storing capacity. These data are gathering dust somewhere or may be stored under unsuitable conditions for any period of time. There should be explicit legislative provision to ensure that there would be a local archives service, first, for local authority activities and, second, for activities related to the performance of the duties of the local authority, such as the new heritage centres.
As a society we have an obligation to ensure that these important historical records are not lost. Many of them were lost in the fire in the Custom House in 1922 when the local authority records were virtually all burned and we were left with a great absence of essential very important and very valuable historical material.
The amendment is self-explanatory, and I could not imagine the Minister finding any reason to object to it.
Senator Costello has outlined the intention behind his amendment. Both amendments are roughly similar in character and I hope that the Minister will support the concept and intention behind them. I raised this on Second Stage and perhaps the Minister could give us some guidance on it. I am sure he has received representations in relation to this matter. I cannot see him opposing the concept of it. Regardless of whether this amendment is the appropriate way of dealing with the matter I think it is important that historical documents and records be kept securely and that local authorities can play their part in that respect. We will await the Minister's response.
I am very much in favour of the principle behind this amendment. Senator Cosgrave spoke about it in his Second Stage contribution. I would have liked, to have responded then. All public bodies — and this obviously includes local authorities — have a responsibility to ensure that their records are properly maintained and stored; future historians will need these records if they are to understand how public policy is made. As Senators will be aware, the law governing the protection of public archives is set out in the National Archives Act, 1986 and this provides that the Taoiseach may at the request of any public body, including a local authority, designate that the records of that body be included as part of the National Archives and be accorded the full protection thereof. The Taoiseach may also make an order to include local authorities fully within the terms of the Act. Finally, the Director of the National Archives may require local authorities to send records to the National Archives. Overall I feel that the powers contained within the Act are sufficient to ensure that local archives are properly protected. In addition, the National Archives provide advice on the management, preservation and reproduction of records. Indeed, the National Archives have produced guidance notes for regional and public bodies in which they support the idea of the preservation of records at local archives. Such local archives already exist in some areas. I am very much in favour of ensuring that local records are preserved and that the public have access to them. The National Archives Act provides the best mechanism for achieving this. The Act sets out detailed conditions regarding the preservation of records which are needed to give effect to what the Senators are trying to achieve with this amendment. The question of the full application of the Act to local authorities is something that I will take up with the National Archives. I can assure the House of my commitment to this issue and I hope Senators will accept the approach I have set out. In those circumstances I cannot accept the amendment.
I would like to be clear on what the Minister proposes. The Act, as I understand, gives authority to the Taoiseach to designate areas of particular concern under the National Archives Act for proper storage and so on. Is the Minister saying that he will speak to the Taoiseach about this matter or that he will put in train procedures to ensure that a local archives service will be put in place. Is he saying he will not accept the amendment but will ensure that its intent is implemented?
I will take up the question of the application of the Act to local authorities with the National Archives.
I welcome what the Minister has said but I feel I would have to press my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 33 is in the name of Senator Norris. Is it being moved?
The Senator has asked me to move the amendment. I move amendment No. 33:
In page 10, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following new sub-paragraph:
"(vi) promote and resource community development initiatives from the voluntary sector particularly in areas of special need.".
This amendment is along the lines of what we have discussed already. It is an extension of the matters we discussed in a previous amendment, that is to promote and resource community development initiatives from the voluntary sector particularly in areas of special need. I do not see value in going over the same ground other than to say that I heartily support Senator Norris's amendment and it would be desirable that it be incorporated in the text of the Bill.
It is suggested by way of criticism that the Bill is flawed because it does not make specific provision for the involvement of community groups with the local government system. For reasons that I have already indicated I am of the view that the criticism is misplaced. The expert committee considered the question of community groups and decided that it was a matter that should be left to the individual local authorities. I have made the points before; I think this is a matter that should be left where it properly belongs, with the elected members.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 10, subsection (2) (d), line 15, after "expedient" to insert the following:
"including partnership arrangements with other public bodies, including those involved in economic development, such as industrial or tourism development, or in other forms of community development, and with private sector enterprises, and with voluntary and community groups".
This amendment is an extension of the role of the local authority, part of whose functions, as the Minister has indicated, is to promote economic, social and environmental matters. The amendment seeks to enable a local authority to enter into partnership with public bodies including local enterprise and local development bodies so that they can participate to a greater degree in local development. Again, it is a statement of intent that the new role of the local authority should be involvement in matters both of a social nature and of an economic nature that are of value to the community.
As I have said on a previous occasion, it is a matter for the individual local authorities to decide how best to involve community groups and I am sure they will pursue this. I have great confidence in local authority members. They are very attuned to what is necessary in their local communities and to the desires and aspirations of local groups within their local communities. It is a vote of confidence in local authority members that what I am saying to them in this legislation is: "I am giving you a job to do and the vehicle to do it. I know you are going to do it in the best interests of all the communities, all that you represent and all the organisations within that community". I do not want to legislate in a mandatory way. I will leave it to the local authorities; that is the thrust of the legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Each local authority shall be responsible for the protection of archives held by them.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 10, lines 29 to 32, to delete subsection (5).
It is proposed here to delete section 6 (5) which provides that a local authority shall not, by virtue of this section, perform any function including the incurring of expenditure or any liability whether contractual or otherwise, which is conferred on the authority by any other provision of this or any other enactment.
This seems to attempt to limit the function of the local authority and to discourage the local authority from involvement in matters by stating they shall not perform any function where there is any likelihood of incurring expenditure or any liability. It is very difficult to understand how a local authority can become involved in any enterprise, certainly any enterprise of substance, where there is not the possibility of incurring expenditure or incurring some liability or undertaking some duty. Like one or two of the sections that I sought to be amended earlier, it seems that it is shying away from the responsibility of providing a full and bold and coherent role of promoting activities in the community of a social economic, environmental and voluntary nature. We would be better off without this type of subsection.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 10, lines 33 to 39, to delete subsection (6), and substitute the following subsection:
"(6) A local authority, when undertaking any activity which relates to a statutory function of another public authority in the functional area of the local authority, shall consult with the public authority concerned in order to avoid duplication of effort or expenditure.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 10, subsection (6), line 34, after "would" to insert "in the opinion of the authority".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 10, subsection (6), line 37, after "would" to insert "in the opinion of the authority".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 40 is ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 11, subsection (8), line 6, to delete "financial".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 9, to delete "or any other".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 11, subsection (1) (b), lines 15 and 16, to delete "adequately those services provided by it in which it considers to be essential" and substitute "essential services at the highest possible standard".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 11, subsection (1) (c), lines 21 and 22, to delete "and public authorities" and substitute ", public authorities and voluntary sector bodies".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 11, subsection (1) (c), line 24, to delete "and economy" and substitute ", economy and the maximum benefit for the local community".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 11, subsection (1) (d), lines 26 and 27, to delete "and public authorities" and substitute ", public authorities and voluntary sector bodies".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 11, subsection (1) (d), lines 26 and 27, to delete "and public authorities" and substitute ", public authorities and with relevant interest groups, including community and voluntary groups, within the local community".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 11, subsection (1) (e), line 28 and 29, to delete "or any Minister of the Government".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 11, lines 42 to 48, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 11, subsection (2), after line 48, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) which discriminates against any group or individual on the grounds of sex, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion or ethnic background (which includes membership of the traveller community).".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 12, subsection (4) (a), line 6, to delete "a functional programme" and substitute "the functions or any part thereof".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 12, subsection (4) (a), lines 7 and 8, to delete ", subject to any conditions that are attached to the grant by the Minister,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 12, subsection (4) (a), line 10, to delete "within the programme" and substitute "or programmes".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 12, subsection (4), lines 11 to 15, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 12, subsection (1) (a), line 16, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 12, subsection (1) (a), lines 16 and 17, to delete "a function" and substitute "functions".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 12, subsection (1) (a), line 18, to delete "a function" and substitute "functions".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 12, subsection (1) (a), line 25, after "classes." to insert the following:
"Within three months from the date of coming into operation of this Act, the Government shall prepare a programme outlining all the functions which shall be transferred. In the performance of their functions under this section, the Government and the Minister shall have regard to the principle that, in so far as it is practicable, powers and functions should be decentralised and devolved to the maximum possible extent. In drawing up this programme, the Government shall have close regard to the already published recommendations of the Advisory Expert Committee on Local Government Reform and Reorganisation, in regard to education, health, social welfare, transport and traffic, heritage and amenity, tourism, police, courts, and justice, community information, consumer protection, and development. The programme shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is prepared, and shall be debated in each such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the programme has been laid before it. No provisional order under this section shall be made until such debate has taken place, and unless a resolution approving of the order has been passed by each such House. The Minister shall annually lay before each House a report of the progress made in implementing transfer and devolution of functions."
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 12, subsection (1), lines 26 to 28, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 12, subsection (1), lines 29 to 33, to delete paragraph (c).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 12, lines 37 to 50, and in page 13, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 13, subsection (3), lines 3 to 5, to delete paragraph (a).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), line 6, to delete "Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a),".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), lines 8 to 13, to delete subparagraph (i).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), lines 14 to 16, to delete subparagraph (ii).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), lines 17 to 20, to delete subparagraph (iii).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), lines 21 to 23, to delete subparagraph (iv).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), lines 24 to 28, to delete subparagraph (v).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b), lines 29 and 30, to delete subparagraph (vi).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b) (vii), line 31, to delete "such other" and substitute "all".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 13, subsection (3) (b) (vii), lines 32 and 33, after "appropriate", to insert "in consultation with the local authorities concerned".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 39, after "paper" to insert "in his or her own name, or using the name of any other person".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 14, subsection (3), line 12, to delete "6 months" and substitute "one year".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 14, subsection (3), line 12, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£2,500".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 15, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) (a) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Minister shall not make any order under this section unless a boundary Committee established under Part V has recommended changes in the local authority boundary, or unless significant population changes have occurred as a result of the most recent Census of population.
(b) In the event of boundary or population changes occurring, the Minister shall request a boundary committee established under Part V to prepare a report and recommendations on the appropriate division of a county borough into local electoral areas, and on the appropriate number of members of the council of the county borough to be elected therefor and the number of those members who are to be aldermen.
(c) The Minister shall be bound by the recommendations of the boundary committee in making any order, including an order to amend or vary any previous order.
(d) In the exercise of his powers under this section, the Minister shall have regard to the requirement that the ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each local electoral area of a county borough and the population of each such local electoral area, as ascertained at the last preceding census, should, so far as is practicable, be the same throughout the functional area of that county borough.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 24, after "Minister of State" to insert "or a Member of either House of the Oireachtas.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 24, after "State" to insert the following:
"or Attorney General, or who has been appointed by the Government or by any member of the Government as a member of the board of a public authority, or who has been appointed by the Taoiseach as a member of the Seanad, or who holds the office of Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the Dáil or Cathaoirleach or Leas-Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, or who is a Chairman of any Committee of the Oireachtas".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 15, lines 31 to 34, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Immediately on the passing of this Act, all such persons who are members of a local authority shall cease to be a member of the authority.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 15, subsection (2), line 40, after "law." to insert "All local elections occurring after 27th June, 1991 shall take place on the same day as election to the European Parliament.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 2, after "law" to insert "save that no term shall be extended for longer than one year from the passing of this Act".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 14, after "law" to insert "save that no term shall be extended for longer than one year from the passing of this Act".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 16, subsection (2), line 16, after "1991" to insert "but must be held before the end of 1992".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 17, subsection (1), lines 5 to 7, to delete the definition of "electoral county" and substitute the following:
"‘electoral county' has the meaning assigned to it by section 18;".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 17, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following definition:
"‘the Greater Dublin Council' means the Council established to represent the interests of the community of the administrative county of Dublin and the city of Dublin, and to co-ordinate the activities of the local authorities within the greater Dublin area".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 17, lines 14 to 16, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
In paragraph (5) "before 18th June, 1992, "should read" before 1st September, 1992."
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 17, before section 18, to insert the following new section:
"19.—(1) There shall be 12 County Borough Councils in Dublin.
(2) Each of these Borough Councils shall be based on an area with a population of approximately 100,000.
(3) The boundaries of these Councils, and the Electoral Areas within them, shall be decided by the Local Boundary Authority.
(4) The first elections of these Councils shall be held on 8th June, 1992.
(5) A manager shall be appointed to each of the County Boroughs before 18th June, 1992.
(6) Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation, shall transfer all their functions to the respective Borough Councils, before 27th June, 1996, on which date Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation shall be dissolved.
(7) The Implementation Commission shall oversee the transfer of functions from the existing to the new local authorities in Dublin.".
What timescale does the Minister envisage in relation to the new Dublin authorities?
It will depend on the progress made, but I think we can move fairly quickly on it. The new managers will be appointed as soon as possible after the elections. They will prepare their report in consultation with the members. I do not want to put a date on it, but a lot of progress will be made within the year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "as soon as may be" and substitute "at its first meeting".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 18, to delete "after the commencement of this section" and substitute "after the passing of this Act".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 17, lines 24 to 38, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) There shall be established three electoral counties, one each to represent the people of the South of Dublin, the West of Dublin, and the North of Dublin.
(b) The boundaries of each electoral county shall be drawn by a boundary committee established under Part V by the Minister for the purpose, and the Minister shall make an order under section 12 to establish the boundaries, based on the report of the boundary committee.
(c) The community of each electoral county shall decide the name to be given to that electoral county, by referendum in which they shall choose between not less than three possible names suggested by the boundary committee, who shall in turn invite suggestions from the general public as part of the preparation of their report.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 17, subsection (3), line 39, to delete "Subject to section 17 (2)," and substitute "Until the establishment of the boundaries for the new electoral counties,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 17, subsection (3), lines 41 and 42, to delete "of that electoral county" and substitute "of the electoral counties established by Part III of the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 17, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The term of office of each area committee established under this section shall be one year from the establishment of each committee, save that the county council may extend the term by resolution for one further year at the expiry of the first year.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 48, after "subsection (4)" to insert "together with functions transferred under section 9".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 18, subsection (4) (b), lines 18 to 25, to delete subparagraph (i).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 18, subsection (4) (b), lines 26 to 35, to delete subparagraph (ii).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 18, subsection (4) (b), lines 36 to 44, to delete subparagraph (iii).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 19, subsection (1) (a), to delete all words from and including "as he considers" in line 6 down to the end of the paragraph, and substitute:
"as are necessary to enable him to properly discharge all the functions transferred to the area committee, functions in respect of each committee district being transferred to a different assistant county manager, and".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 19, subsection (1), line 25, after "and" to insert "the holder of each of the three offices shall be known as Area Manager and shall perform, in relation to one of the area committees and its committee district, the functions referred to in subsection (2) and such other functions as may be conferred on him by or under this Act or any other enactment".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 19, subsection (1), lines 26 to 44, to delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 20, lines 2 to 28, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) The offices established under this section, and any subsequent vacancies in these offices, shall be filled by an open competition which shall be conducted by the Local Appointments Commission in accordance with its usual procedures.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 20, lines 29 to 35, to delete subsection (4).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 20, before section 22, to insert the following new section:
"22.—Upon establishment of administrative counties to replace the area committees and committee districts, any person holding an office of Area Manager to which he was appointed under section 21 shall be deemed to be the County Manager of the administrative county in which he was serving as Area Manager at the time of establishment.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 21, subsection (1) (a), lines 7 and 8, to delete "prepare jointly during the appropriate period a preliminary report" and substitute "immediately prepare jointly a report".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 22, subsection (3) (d), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new sub-paragraph:—
"(iii) any of the proposed councils and local community groups in areas of special need,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 22, subsection (4) (a), line 34, after "Minister", to insert "and shall be on display to the general public.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 22, subsection (4) (b), line 39, after "made." to insert "Submissions will also be considered from community groups in the areas concerned.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 22, lines 40 to 44, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) The reorganistion report shall be completed within six months of the passing of this Act.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 109:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 2, after "Minister" to insert "He shall cause it to be published, and shall invite public comment on the report".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 110:
In page 23, subsection (2), line 6, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 111:
In page 23, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) All regulations made under this section shall be subject to the provisions of section 3 (6)".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 24, line 6, after "thereto" to insert "All directions given under this section shall be subject to the provisions of section 3 (6)."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 113:
In page 24, before section 26, to insert the following new section:
"26.—(1) There shall be established a Greater Dublin Council, to represent the interests of the area covered by Dublin Corporation and the three administrative counties of Dublin, and the community thereof, and to co-ordinate the activities of the local authorities and other public bodies in the area, with a view to ensuring the integrated development of the economic and social life of the area.
(2) The Greater Dublin Council shall have the same status as a regional authority established under section 43.
(3) The Greater Dublin Council shall consist of 50 members, divided as follows:
six members nominated by each county council; 12 members nominated by Dublin Corporation — six from North of the Liffey and six from South of the Liffey; eight members nominated by voluntary groups within the area; ten members elected by the local community.
(4) The Minister shall make regulations (subject to section 3 (6)), to provide all the necessary resources to enable the Dublin Metropolitan Council to discharge its functions effectively, including staff and financial resources.
(5) The Greater Dublin Council shall be responsible for the preparation of an overall strategic development plan for the city and county of Dublin, including land use, zoning, and transportation. Local development plans and area action plans covering detailed matters shall be drawn up by the three county councils and the corporation, having regard to the overall strategic plan.
(6) The Greater Dublín Council shall draw up proposals for District Councils for the greater Dublin area, each serving a population of approximately 40,000 people. Such councils shall be directly elected. Pending the establishment of such district councils, the local authorities shall devolve the administration of local services to centres serving a catchment area of that scale, to bring local services closer to the community being served.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 25, line 37, to delete "boundary committee" and substitute "independent boundary committee".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 25, subsection (1), lines 44 and 45, to delete "may establish one or more committees which or each of which" and substitute "shall establish a committee which".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 25, lines 47 to 49, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 26, lines 3 to 44, and in page 27, lines 1 to 9, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) (a) The independent boundary committee shall be appointed by the Government and shall consist of the President of the High Court, or a person nominated by him, who shall serve as the chairman of the committee, and in addition the following persons: the Clerk of the Dáil, or a person nominated by him; the Secretary of the Department of the Environment, or a person nominated by him; the Ombudsman, or a person nominated by him; a person nominated by the County and City Managers Association; and two persons nominated by the Minister, both of whom will be representative of community interests.
(b) The number of members of the independent boundary committee who shall constitute a quorum for any purpose shall be three.
(c) A member of the independent boundary committee shall not take part in any of the proceedings of the committee in respect of a local authority in which he has any personal interest.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 118:
In page 27, subsection (5), line 10, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 27, subsection (5), line 11, to delete "remuneration (if any) and".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 27, subsection (5), lines 12 and 13, to delete "as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may determine".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 27, subsection (6) (a), line 14, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 27, subsection (6) (a), line 15, to delete "he may specify" and substitute "may be agreed upon by the Minister and the Committee".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 27, subsection (6), lines 18 to 22, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 27, subsection (1) (a), line 24, after "resolution" to insert "and after consultation with the relevant community groups".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 27, subsection (1), between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) The making of a proposal shall be a reserved function.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 27, subsection (2), lines 51 and 52, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) take all steps possible to ensure that the local community is made fully aware of the proposal, and to take full account of the views of the local community.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 127:
In page 28, subsection (3) (a), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subparagraph:
"(ii) Each respondent shall take every step possible to ensure that the local community is made fully aware of the proposal and shall invite the local community to submit views on the proposal, which views shall be fully taken into account when the statement of response is being prepared.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 28, subsection (1), between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) the steps that have been taken to ensure that the local community have had a full opportunity to consider and participate in the proposal.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 28, subsection (1) (a), line 47, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 130:
In page 28, subsection (1) (a), to delete lines 51 to 53 and substitute "unless he considers that an alteration would not be in the interests of effective and representation local government, in which case he shall publish a statement outlining the basis of his conclusion and reasons.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 28, subsection (1), lines 54 to 55 and in page 29, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 132:
In page 29, subsection (2) (a), line 6, after "thereof" to insert "or where the Minister has reason to believe that the views of the local community have not been taken fully into account in the proposal".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 133:
In page 29, subsection (2) (a), lines 6 and 7, to delete ",unless he considers it inappropriate to do so, or, in any other case, may,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 29, subsection (2) (b), line 10, to delete "have regard to" and substitute "be bound by".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 135:
In page 29, lines 13 to 23, to delete subsection (3).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
Sections 32 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 136:
In page 34, subsection (1), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) in areas and communities of special need a local authority must establish a committee to plan and implement responses to local community concerns where a consensus exists among community groups as to the need for such an initiative, this committee to be a partnership arrangement involving community groups elected representatives and public authority officials.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 36, subsection (1) (c), in line 46, to delete "not".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 39 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 37, before section 40, to insert the following new section:
"40.—(1) The Minister may make regulations—
(a) making general provisions in respect of the area of jurisdiction of committees or joint committees,
(b) to provide for the dissolution or continuance of a joint committee, where disagreement has arisen between the local authorities concerned,
(c) as respects the procedures, general administration and general finances of joint committees,
(d) as respects such other general matters relating to committees or joint committees as the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) No regulation may be made under this subsection except it is in keeping with section 27 of the 1985 Act and the Fifth Schedule to that Act.
(3) Subject to the foregoing upon the commencement of this Part and of regulations under this section, the matters to which this Part relates and with respect to which regulations were made, shall, as respects any local authority concerned, be governed by the provisions of this Part and the regulations, and such previous provisions (whether made by or under statute) as may be specified in the regulations applying to that authority and relating to those matters shall cease to have effect as respects that authority.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 40 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 139:
In page 40, subsection (4) (b), between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following new sub-paragraph:
"(xiii) the development of coordinated culturally appropriate initiatives that provide for the traveller community, such initiatives to be pursued in a partnership with the traveller community and community groups working within that community.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 140:
In page 40, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) Each regional authority shall establish a Central Archive Office, and the council of a county or county borough the functional area of which is included in that region shall submit all archives to the Central Archive Office.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 141:
In page 40, after line 48, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) Before an establishment order or an order amending or revoking an establishment order is made under this section, the views of each of the local authorities concerned on all matters pertaining to the proposed regional authority including its functional area, its role, its financing and in respect of representation of each local authority, shall be ascertained by the Minister.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 43 agreed to.
Sections 44 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
I move amendment No. 142:
In page 43, lines 12 and 13, to delete subsection (4).
In relation to giving directions, I hope the Minister is not going to interfere in any way with the twinning process that has successfully got under way in many areas. Perhaps he would comment briefly on that matter.
The only power I am taking here relates to a residual function. It is to make sure that nothing out of the way is done. Arrangements can be put in place later if necessary, but no curtailment is intended. It is a reserved function.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 143:
In page 43, subsection (2), between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(e) particulars of initiatives to foster the involvement of community groups in local government and of the consultative procedures pursued by the authority in identifying local community needs.
(f) particulars of the provisions made for the traveller community by the local authority and in particular of initiatives resourcing the traveller culture and nomadic way of life.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 50 agreed to.
Sections 51 to 55, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I seek permission to re-enter the amendments which were moved but which were not pressed on Committee Stage.
I understand that notice would have to be given.
I am giving notice now. I could not do so earlier as we have only completed Committee Stage.
The amendments would have to be considered.
I am available.
I understand from the officials that we would have to have a sos to have these amendments considered, and they would have to be examined. If the Senator is pressing the amendments for consideration, we will have to do that.
I will not press for that. I just wanted to establish my entitlement to re-enter them, because I am afraid what has happened in the past 20 minutes really underlines my point about the rubber stamp. In the interests of fair play on all sides I will withdraw the amendment, given the hour of the evening. The point has been made.
Once again Senator Doyle has excelled in her theatrical performance.
I will withdraw my request to re-enter my amendments for Report Stage.
The Senator was fortunate that I was able to advise her on procedure.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.