Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Local Government Bill 2003: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not agree with their being discussed together because each relates to a different issue. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are more related. As I want to raise a different issue in relation to them, I do not want the three amendments to be grouped.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If the Member objects, the amendments will be discussed separately.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 17, to delete "either House of the Oireachtas" and substitute Dáil Éireann".
I thank the Minister for coming. Amendment No. 1 proposes to exclude Senators from the change in the legislation. Many Members who spoke on Second Stage made the point that Senators were in a different position from Deputies. They have a relationship with councillors which arises from the way in which they are elected. They are elected by county councillors. There is a tradition of Members of the Seanad being county councillors, although there are other practising professionals in the House, which professions take up more time than being a county councillor. The Members concerned contribute their knowledge and expertise to the House. A county councillor can, however, bring the same perspective to the House, which is very important. Being a former county councillor is very different from being a practising county councillor. In the light of the unique relationship between Senators and county councillors in regard to Seanad elections, it is important to maintain this perspective in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
It is often said that the committee of the regions in the European Parliament is effectively its senate. Its members include sitting councillors. A similar situation applies here. I am a Senator and county councillor and I have no problem holding both positions. The Seanad does not sit the same number of hours as the Dáil and it would be absurd to suggest that it should sit five days a week. As it is, Senators work hard and the current level of participation by the House is sufficient.
On Second Stage, I expressed the view that the dual mandate should not be abolished. It should be for candidates, the political parties and the electors to decide. For example, the Green Party has made a choice in this area in the absence of a legislative prohibition.
From my contact with different parties, I have found that Members of both Houses find the practicalities of the dual mandate more difficult, but some are prepared to give the extra time that is required. I am a solicitor, but I have chosen to wind down that part of my career in favour of full-time involvement as a politician. Should I decide to resume my career as a solicitor I may decide not to pursue my work as a county councillor, but at present I find it is manageable to be both a county councillor and Senator. Deputies could make the same argument. It is a question of choice and as a Senator I am putting the case for the dual mandate in this House. Deputies can make their case in the Dáil.
As far as I am aware, while the dual mandate in England is not utilised by custom, it is not prohibited by law. Members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly can hold a dual mandate as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. If the Dáil becomes increasingly busy it will become the practice for Deputies not to hold a dual mandate. That has happened in the European Parliament where Members have chosen not to hold a dual mandate, but there is no legal prohibition. That is the correct way to proceed. The issue should not be addressed by way of legislation.
On Second Stage, I outlined what I consider to be the constitutional problem with this proposal. Independent Members are most likely to challenge it. The Minister should bear in mind that if the Bill is not referred by the President to the Supreme Court, somebody will challenge it and they will have strong grounds for doing so.
I do not question the Minister's motive as it has been on the agenda for a considerable period, but Fianna Fáil has a strategic consideration in having this measure enacted. If the legislation is enacted and a subsequent challenge is upheld, it will create serious problems. Independents will seek election for a dual mandate and this will encourage party members to do so. The provision will also create a number of anomalies, for example, Members of the Oireachtas will also be able to seek election to the European Parliament.
The Minister has not provided guidelines regarding entitlements of Members of the Oireachtas in terms of access and input to information, documentation and rights of audience with local authorities. If he were to proceed on this basis, constitutional problems could arise. Recently, a county councillor wrote to The Irish Times advising that he would consider taking a legal challenge if this provision was enacted. He may have a strong basis for doing so and I will return to this aspect under later amendments.
There is a particular difficulty with giving Senators rights of audience or access to documentation. I was elected to this House by electors residing in all parts of the country. Where do my rights start and end? Do they apply in respect of all local authorities? There is an argument for excluding Senators, but on a point or principle, it should not apply to any Member of the Oireachtas.
The Bill seeks to amend the principal Act. The debate is ultimately concerned with the question of being in favour of, or against, the dual mandate. I understood most parties in the House were against its continuance. The amendment seeks to allow Senators to retain a dual mandate if they wish. However, it is important to note that this House does extensive work and most Senators are very busy here. I am sure Senator Tuffy does not seek to use a strategy of divide and conquer by proposing that Senators retain the dual mandate while Deputies should not.
The most important issue arising from the abolition of the dual mandate is the question of access to the executive and management of local authorities. As things stand, Oireachtas Members are entitled to seek access to the deliberations of health boards, tourism boards and other local bodies.
I agree with the amendment as it will help to maintain the relevance of the Seanad. Politics is concerned with helping people in their local communities. It is all about leading, helping, supporting and looking after them in their communities. A Senator does not have a constituency as such, but we represent our counties and local authorities and as Oireachtas Members take pride in them. Currently almost two thirds of the Members of this House serve on local authorities and have constituencies. We do not have the same facilities in our constituencies as Dáil Deputies. For example, we do not have a constituency secretary. This needs to be addressed. We must make representations for people and cannot turn away those we have represented for 15, 20 or 25 years. We must never lose sight of the fact that politics is about serving people.
We are responsible for leading and helping our communities and are involved in development association meetings. Every weekend I have about five meetings a night to attend. This work is important and involves a lot of time writing reports and preparing documentation. We have not got the secretarial services that we need and we would like to see this addressed. The Bill does not make adequate provision for Seanad Members to represent the people in their constituencies.
It is important that we develop new ways of working. We should give Senators and councillors the powers they need to lead their communities. We should be facilitated in the same way as Deputies as we are all lumped together as Oireachtas Members in the Bill. Will the Minister inform us what he intends to do in regard to this?
I thank the Senators for their contributions. Senator Kitt put it succinctly when he said that Members were either for the dual mandate or they were not. That is the issue.
I respect Senator Tuffy's views which I know are well meant. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to end the dual mandate for Members of Dáil Éireann but not for Seanad Éireann. It also seeks to permit Oireachtas Members generally to continue to stand for local elections, by amending section 13A which section 2 of the Bill will insert in the Principal Act. Amendment No. 3 is related and seeks to maintain the status quo by omitting the proposed amendment to section 13(1)(e) of the Local Government Act.
As regards amendment No. 1, I accept that councillors form part of the electorate for many Senators and that these Senators undoubtedly have a link to local government. That link is not dependent on the continuation of the dual mandate. I understand the loyalties Senators have to their electorate, but have they asked their electorate, the councillors, for their views? Those views are well known. Councillors are not in favour of the continuation of the dual mandate.
Have Senators any loyalty to their colleagues in the other House? Under the Constitution, a person eligible for membership of the Seanad is equally eligible to become a Member of Dáil Éireann. None of us would like to see that principle undermined but this amendment, if it succeeded, would have that effect. To date, the two Houses have worked in unison, complementing and enhancing each others role. This proposed measure would be divisive and damaging to that relationship. This amendment does no one any favours, least of all Senators who might find themselves fighting on all fronts. It does not serve democracy well at either national or local level.
Have the Senators thought about the practical workability of this proposal? Some Members of the Oireachtas would be permitted to be on local councils while their colleagues in the other House would not. Both Houses are together vested by the Constitution with the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State. Have the Senators looked beyond these Houses and the council chambers and considered what the public will make of this? I do not propose to accept this amendment. It would be unworkable within the political system, incomprehensible to the public and divisive for the Oireachtas.
If we accept that the dual mandate has to go, the principle must be applied to all Oireachtas Members. There can be no ambiguity or indecision in our implementation of the principle. I cannot accept what the Senator has said. I have had the experience of serving in this House, on a local authority, in the Dáil, on committees and now as a Member of Cabinet. It is many years since I was on a local council but I have had no difficulty in carrying out my role in regard to what is expected of me by the public in the constituency from which I am elected.
We all fall into the trap, and I have done so on many occasions, of thinking, legitimately in a sense, that we are almost indispensable. We sometimes think that without our presence on everything the world might fall apart. I have seen politicians who were at the fulcrum of political life either lose their seats or retire. One wonders how within a week some of the most famous names in public life are just forgotten. This does not happen in a malign or derogatory way. Life just moves on.
We must have the confidence to upscale local government. I am aware of comments made by the Leader of the House and I agree with what Senator Bannon and others have said about the reform of the Seanad that can now take place. Reform of local government and of the Dáil can also take place. There is a public perception about the plenary sessions of the Oireachtas. The public expects more to happen during a plenary session.
As a Senator ten or more years ago I made the point that the Seanad should have a much stronger European focus. We may have a more knowledgeable base in regard to Europe but, given the dynamics of Europe and the legislation and directives emerging, we need that. There is no lack of real substantive issues with which the Seanad could deal. It is a narrow focus that says it is only based on what it exists on at present. That is important but there are great possibilities for the Seanad.
The fact that a Senator's electorate is spread throughout the country is not a difficulty. Senator Bannon has put down some amendments. I will lay out for the Members what I intend to bring forward on Report Stage in that regard. We live in an information age and society. Everything, by and large, is available in the public domain and if people want something they will find it. There are some issues but I will deal with those.
We must see that this as a break between local government structure and national Government structure and their respective roles. The roles are individual but there are complementary aspects to them. If we are really serious about enhancing public life and enhancing access to that structure, this is an opportunity to bring more people into the public life system and to maintain the development and dynamic of local government.
I hold a very strong view. I dislike the fact that successive Governments have created enormous funding streams into local areas – I blame all Governments over the past decade for this. That is the good principle of subsidiarity which I supported. However, the streams are managed and implemented in a way that is disconnected from the system of local government. Those who avail of and are involved in this have no connection and see no connection between them and the political system. They should come back within the structure of local government as the main decision-making body in the process. In order to do this local government, in terms of its meetings, role and involvement, will have to upscale substantially also.
The position of local government representatives will probably become a full-time one. It is already moving in that direction. I have said it is going down that road. While I have been accused of excluding people, I am not; I am giving them choices. If they wish to be involved in local government, the choice is available to them. The same applies to the arena of national politics. It is not a case of stopping people, we are simply identifying what can be done to develop public life.
The issue of dual membership of the European Parliament and the Oireachtas was raised during earlier debates on the Bill. From the European Parliament elections in 2004 an Act of the European Union provides that the office of Member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of a member of a national parliament. However, a temporary derogation is provided for Oireachtas Members elected to the European Parliament in 2004. Such Members may retain both seats until the subsequent Dáil or Seanad elections, at which time the ban will kick in. The derogation is due to the different time frames between our national elections and those to the European Parliament. Therefore, Ireland is not alone in moving inexorably in this direction, the European Union is doing the same.
Senator Tuffy raised the issue of a potential constitutional difficulty. Fine Gael and the Labour Party tabled amendments to the Local Government Act 2000 when it was being debated to insert a ban on the dual mandate. Amazingly, the wording is identical to that before the House. Obviously, there was no question then in their minds about issues of constitutionality. I specifically read out the then Fine Gael policy which confirmed my point in regard to constitutionality. It is ultimately a matter for the courts to adjudicate on the constitutionality of any legislation. We live by this, which is fine by me.
I ask Senators to bear in mind that Ministers and Ministers of State are debarred from local authority membership, as are MEPs, certain EU office holders, the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, judges, gardaí, Army personnel, senior civil servants and others. Is anyone seriously suggesting that all of these people should now be prepared to enter the local government system in 2004? There is a good precedent. A body of work has been built over time.
The Minister said one did not have to be a practising member of a local authority to bring one's perspective to bear. I disagree. As a practising member of a local authority, one is aware of what is happening in the local authority at any given time. I bring to the House my perspective on problems with local government funding, housing programme delivery and so on. I do not just know that there is a housing issue, I know the minutiae because I know the problems that arise at local authority level.
I still do that to this day and I have not served on a local authority for many years.
I am not so sure.
I would be a fool if I was not aware of the detail of what was happening in my area.
The Minister has an advantage in his role, particularly in the portfolio he holds. I have the ordinary county councillor's perspective of these problems.
I do not see anything wrong with the dual mandate which is a made-up phrase. There are Members who have other professions. Some are business people who come to the Oireachtas to practise as Senators and Deputies. It is a contrived phrase. Some of our best representatives have held the so-called dual mandate. The Minister referred to the fact that he was a member of a county council and would probably agree that it has been an advantage to him as a public representative to look at matters from both perspectives.
It should not be a legal issue but a practical one for people to decide if they wish to commit the necessary time. I decided to step aside from my career as a solicitor to concentrate on politics. That was my choice which I would not force on anyone else, nor would I say someone engaged in business should have to give it up while he or she was a Member of the Oireachtas. A barrister should not have to give up his or her career either, unless he or she was a Minister. Again, it should be a matter of personal choice in that regard. Practicalities force Ministers to make the choice to step aside from their professional career for the duration of the Ministry. It is not a legal prohibition but a choice. That is how the matter should be left.
The Minister said it was a break between local government and the Dáil. As I said on Second Stage, it is not because county councillors are allowed to run for election to the Dáil and Seanad. Apart from anything else, this must give rise to a constitutional problem. In newspaper reports Fianna Fáil indicated that one of the reasons for the change was that it could have new candidates to run for election to the Dáil implying that it saw local government as a stepping stone to the Dáil. If that was not the case, I would possibly give more credence to what the Minister said.
Not all councillors want to be elected to the Dáil.
No, not all of them, but that is part of Fianna Fáil's reasoning behind the change. To my knowledge, the Taoiseach has stated this as a reason for attracting new people at local government level.
It is a reinvigoration of public life, a renewal process for all the parties, not exclusive to Fianna Fáil.
That happens anyway.
How does it?
We need to improve the way the Oireachtas operates in addition to reforming local government. In their current forms people are excluded because they are so family-unfriendly and unsuited to those who have other professions and so on.
I agree.
In order to get more people involved at any level we need to make it more amenable to those who cannot get time off during the day. I have a problem attending joint committee meetings, not because of local government commitments but because they clash with the Order of Business in the House. If there was reform, it would actually make it easier to hold the dual mandate, in addition to helping others contribute to public life.
The Minister has indicated that he is thinking about making membership of local government a full-time job. I totally oppose this suggestion. Local government has an almost voluntary aspect which is recognised by the fact that no salary is provided – a representational payment is made to councillors. It would be a retrograde step to exclude business people, for example.
That is new.
I am not saying this will happen but if it is made a full-time job it will be the case. That would not be a good move.
There is also the financial implication. It is not financially feasible to say to the public that we have 1,000 full-time paid politicians as opposed to 166 Deputies and 60 Senators. That would be totally unacceptable from the general public's point of view at a time when there is an embargo on public service appointments. If, to make it financially feasible, the Minister is suggesting that the number of local authority members be reduced I would find that unacceptable.
I did not say that.
I know the Minister has not said that. Given that it has been put about that he would make local authority members full time I consider I should address the issue during this debate. Much has been said in the media about the dual mandate and that it has to do with the money. County councillors were not paid for most of the period of local government's existence. There is a cost to people in local government, as anyone who has been a member of a local authority knows. It still costs money. We do not get the representational payment now. There is no financial advantage for me in being a member of a local authority. My motive, and that of many others, is that I like local government and I have always had a passion for it. I would like to combine my membership of the local authority with national representation because I can contribute both nationally and locally with that dual perspective. It is important that the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party inform the media that it is not for the money that one is involved in local government and it never has been.
I did not suggest that.
Much has been made of the fact that when the Fianna Fáil Party has held meetings it has to do with the money aspect more than anything else.
It was not. I was there.
I know from speaking with Members of the Oireachtas that is not true. The people involved in it have a passion for it. Senator Bannon raised the issue of the local mandate, as I have done. As a Senator I do not have a local mandate. I would like to have that local mandate and to retain it.
A Senator
I have a local mandate.
The Senator does not have a local mandate and that is the reality.
The Minister mentioned the derogation for Irish members of the European Parliament. I apologise – I was not aware of that. The fact is they have held it, they still do and they have got a derogation. That is another aspect of the reasoning behind my second amendment which I will explain later. The point is that one can transfer from one to the other and one should be able to go from what is perceived to be a higher level to a lower level. Even if that is the eventual trend one should be able to move from one level to the other.
I am not talking down the role of a Senator. I agree it is a busy job. I met members of the press on the press gallery the other day and we discussed the Freedom of Information Act because it obviously affects them. They are not in the gallery to the same extent as in the Dáil, although they should be in the Dáil more often. We do important work in the Seanad.
Life as a Senator is not as busy as that of a Minister. In terms of our salary and facilities it is recognised in the Houses of the Oireachtas that the role of a Senator is different and that the level of work involved is less than that of a Deputy. It would be a sham for us to say we are equivalent and pay us the same money as a Deputy and artificially to contrive debates. Our level of participation is busy but it is on a different level from that of a Deputy.
I do not agree with the ending of the dual mandate. It should be left to a personal or political party choice as to whether to end the dual mandate. Perhaps the political parties could come to a mutual agreement. It is bad for one to lose the local government perspective.
During the election campaign, the Tánaiste was reported in the local newspaper as saying there was no housing crisis. The reason she said that was that she did not have the local government perspective that I have, nor has she had it for a long time. At one time she was a county councillor and perhaps a term on the local authority would not do her, or any politician, any harm. It would put them in touch with the people.
I have spoken to various Deputies and Senators about this matter. Government party Senators who have spoken to me on a personal level have indicated they are not at all happy with this change and they want to continue their role in local government. There is a difference of opinion between what is being proposed by the Government and the feeling on the ground among its members. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
The Minister referred to parties, other parties, party politics, our past views and present views but in this life nothing is permanent except change. The Minister has changed several times in life, has taken different stances and has even changed political parties.
The Senator is rewriting history.
Fianna Fáil adopted our policies on the Northern Ireland issue after years of being in an intransigent position. The Tallaght strategy brought about the Celtic tiger and this was a Fine Gael policy introduced by Alan Dukes.
The party got rid of Alan Dukes for doing it.
That policy was good for Ireland and the economy and it gave us great standing in Europe. That was the foundation for the Celtic tiger and for good government over ten years. It was started by the collective political parties.
I was interested to hear the Minister say the role of councillors will be more or less a full-time job. Does he plan to reduce the number of councillors and is he proposing to bring forward a recommendation in this regard? This is an issue with which I would not be happy. In any local authority people come in with different views and perspectives. My area is farming and auctioneering. Those who come, business people, publicans and teachers, have a different perspective on life and different agendas. This is very important rather than people coming out of college, going into the local government system and becoming entranced at what national Government is doing. Whatever one's party is doing at national level is a copycat of the local government system. I would not like that type of situation in local government.
After leaving school I got involved in a number of community organisations. I was approached by a political party and asked to stand in the local elections. I stood and was successful. In my deliberations at the local council I make suggestions based on my involvement with the local community. I am still involved in the local community which works for the betterment of my county.
There are a number of quangos in most counties which have vast budgets, meet behind closed doors and are not accountable to anyone. In his contribution the Minister referred to local government functions. There is no meaningful role for elected representatives in the planning area because too many directives come from the Department and at the end of the day An Bord Pleanála has the decision-making power in that area. Major infrastructural development was taken out of the hands of local authorities and given to the National Roads Authority. We debated the Environment Protection Bill last night which, again, dilutes the role of elected representatives. The Minister said local government was being altered dramatically. This is detrimental to the elected public representative who has a lesser role while up and down the country quangos meet behind closed doors. When reforming local government I hope the Minister will get rid of those quangos and give the power back to the people's representatives, the elected members.
I would like partnership councils to work more closely with business, professional bodies, the voluntary sector and local people. Fine Gael has brought forward proposals on the real reform of local government which have been publicised by the media in recent days. This will be a radical document. As in the past, I am sure the Government will latch on to some of our good proposals. Posts, such as directors of community care, planning, economic development and tourism promotion, should be created. We should give real power back to the people. Who knows more about the facilities in a county than the people who live there?
There are seven or eight tourism boards in this country. At times one does not know exactly what they are doing. They have no real interest in promoting particular areas of counties. We have beautiful amenities in the midlands, including the River Shannon, but they are seldom mentioned. I am a member of the Midlands-East Regional Tourism Authority, but Longford seldom receives any kudos from it. We know what is happening in our county and what should be promoted and developed. The role of promoting tourism should be handed back to local people.
There is a real need for change involving local communities, modernising the system and the way councils work, etc., but it is not being done in the Bill. Councils should lead the community in a more positive fashion than they have in the past. There is a need for a partnership between central Government and local government. All of this must be included in any proposals the Minister brings forward.
I am delighted the Minister is here again because I thoroughly enjoy the sessions when he is in the House. He is a politician whom I did not know heretofore, but he is a pragmatic man and I congratulate him on having the courage and conviction to push through this dual mandate aspect of the Bill.
It is easy for me to talk about this matter because I am not a county councillor. When we discussed this at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting, I felt I had no right to give an opinion. The Minister had the guts to make this change and the Taoiseach supported him. This issue has been on the agenda for years.
As a new Senator, there no doubt that I am in a man's club. I hope any young ladies listening will have the courage to come forward and become involved in politics. It is a man's club of which I am acutely conscious every minute of the day. Of 30 Fianna Fáil Senators, only five are women. I am used to being in business – myself and my business partner, Connie, started our business together – and meeting women at the chamber of commerce and elsewhere.
I am aware that the figures relating to female representation in the Oireachtas are bad. I think female participation in the Lower House is 13%.
It is 40% in the Labour Party.
I do not dispute that, but I am talking about overall participation.
On a point of order, that matter is not relevant to the legislation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator White, without interruption.
The Senator is lost for words.
I have not been lost for words since the day I learnt to speak.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator White, we are dealing with amendment No. 1 to section 2.
I see the abolition of the dual mandate as an opportunity—
On a point of order, membership of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann is open to any member of the public.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Point taken.
The Oireachtas is a man's club. I see the abolition of the dual mandate as an opportunity for women to go forward for election. It is unnatural that women comprise only 13% of the Members of the Oireachtas, particularly in view of the fact that they comprise more than 50% of the population. It is most undemocratic that there is such a low level of participation by women.
On a point of order, I do not understand from where Senator White is coming. There is nothing in the legislation or in the rules of my party barring women from entering politics. Any woman can contest an election.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order.
Senator White is insinuating that women are not allowed to contest elections.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator White, we are on amendment No. 1 to section 2.
It is undemocratic and unjust that there is such a low percentage of women in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I agree with Senator Bannon—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As has been pointed out, this section deals with the dual mandate.
—that nobody is stopping women contesting elections, but I see the abolition of the dual mandate as an opportunity for women.
As I said, I am not a councillor so it is easy for me to speak. However, I would like to see women rise to the challenge because there will be approximately 123 vacancies which women could seek to fill. I agree with Senator Bannon that nobody is stopping women contesting elections, but unless one is very strong-minded, putting one's self forward in a male dominated arena is very difficult. If a woman is demure and is not too pushy, she is regarded as having admirable qualities. My assistant provided me with an article from the Irish Independent today which says I am not all sweetness and light, that I am awful and that I am the most unpopular person in the Seanad.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That has nothing to do with the amendment.
We have to be strong-minded. Every man in my life, from my father to my husband to men in business, wanted to help me. I was chairwoman of my cumann in Fianna Fáil where I found that men helped me. I am the eldest of six children, so I am not easily intimidated. Women need a helping hand to go forward and they require encouragement.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senator speak to the amendment?
I compliment the Minister on being a pragmatic politician. Technology changes by the minute. The same is true of business because there is so much competition, but I find social change only occurs on a piecemeal basis. I congratulate the Minister for expediting opportunities for women to rise to the challenge and to avail of the abolition of the dual mandate.
I largely commend Senator White on her remarks. I was a Member of the previous Seanad and one of the most disappointing features on this side of the House was the utter decimation of the female representation in the recent election. Most female Members of the previous Seanad came from the largest Opposition party, Fine Gael, and many of them, who are fine individuals, lost out and did not return.
The point raised by Senator White is one into which I have put a considerable amount of thought. In the event of vacancies being created by the abolition of the dual mandate in the coming months, it would be worth observing whether female members of the Oireachtas will be replaced by female councillors. It would also be worth keeping a head count of how many female councillors are lost or, I hope, how many additional female councillors are elected. I appeal to all parties to take that into account.
In north Tipperary, two female Members of the Oireachtas, as a result of the legislation, will be obliged to step down and not contest the next election. Both of us are members of Nenagh Town Council and are also on North Tipperary County Council. I will keep a close eye on what the party opposite does in that regard. It is an important point that raises an important issue which is relevant to this debate about membership of local authorities.
For most of us, although not all, entry to political life was through the local authority. I became a Member of the Seanad before I was elected to a local authority. It is, in most cases, the entry point into a political career. In that regard, it is extremely important that political parties bend over backwards to ensure women are brought into politics. I have spoken about this to the female members of the organisation in north Tipperary.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind the Senator that we are dealing with amendment No. 1 to section 2.
My point is relevant to amendment No. 1 which deals with membership of the Oireachtas and local authority at the same time. Women do not see themselves in leadership roles or speaking roles and they must be encouraged to do so. Women should be encouraged to speak out on community issues and to get involved in the town council and county council. That is where their voices should be heard because that is where the decisions are made. Whose fault is it if their voices are not being heard?
It is one's own fault.
I deal with mother and toddler groups, community groups and others who have a strong representation of women on issues relating to hospitals, health and caring. These matters are very close to the agenda of most women involved in even the most minor activities in their community. They are the ones we want to come on to local authorities.
If the dual mandate is abolished and a number of us are prevented from standing in next year's local elections, then it is incumbent on the political parties to ensure they do not just pay lipservice to gender balance. This change will present a real opportunity to increase female representation. We will keep a close eye on that issue.
The Minister may recall that I raised on Second Stage the point about the relationship between Senators and councillors – 43 Members of this House are directly elected by councillors – being different from the relationship which Members of the Dáil have with local authorities. As members elected by councillors, one of our roles is to reflect their views. Also, we must reflect local government and ensure that an important tier of public administration is heard at national level. There is a strong case to be made for retaining the dual mandate for Senators in particular. I said on Second Stage I would support an amendment in that regard. I ask the Minister to look closely at that idea. I will be interested to hear his response.
The Dáil and Seanad are two different places. Some people do not see it like that. From what I can see some people barely recognise the existence of the Seanad. We do not do the same job as the Dáil. The Seanad plays a particular role. We do what is required of the Upper House of the Oireachtas. It is also reflected in the Constitution and there is a very specific linkage between local authority members and Senators. Actively to prevent Senators serving on local authorities is wrong. It undermines and potentially breaks the link already established in the Constitution. I ask the Minister to consider that much harm could be done in breaking that linkage between Senators and members of local authorities. He should not prevent us being members of local authorities.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. I agree with Senator Bannon that one can change one's mind on policy. I have no difficulty with that. That is the evolution in which we, in politics, are all involved. I made the remark in the context of the constitutionality point where when one had a different point of view one did not have a constitutional problem with the Bill. The Senator now has a problem with the Bill, even though it contains the words put forward by Fine Gael when the Bill was brought before the Seanad in 2000.
It is presumptuous and quite extraordinary of Senators to suggest councillors should not be paid on a full-time basis. I would love to have councillors' views on that. It is akin to my saying Senators should not be paid on a full-time basis.
No one said that.
It was not about pay.
Let us be clear. I have heard it said all morning. It is an extraordinary approach for Senators to take. It comes back to the point I have been making and which runs through this Bill. I have stated my view given the involvement and demands of local government. I see no reason as we go forward, given the opportunity this presents us, that that should be part of the possibility. For people who are well paid to say their colleagues serving in another authority should not be paid is an extraordinary assertion. I find that quite bizarre.
On a point of information, the Minister is deliberately misinterpreting what my colleagues have said.
The Minister, without interruption, please.
I am not. I am quoting what was said.
The Minister is deliberately misinterpreting what was said.
Acting Chairman
The Senator must resume her seat and obey the ruling of the Chair. There has been a great deal of debate and discussion on this matter. The Minister without interruption, please.
The Minister should be accurate about what was said. He is deliberately misinterpreting Senators.
I am being accurate.
Acting Chairman
Senator O'Meara had a good innings on this issue. The Minister without interruption, please.
I was elected to Dáil Éireann at 32 years of age. Since then I have listened to debate after debate, political party after political party, talk about reform. There have been complaints – many of them well founded, others not so well founded – that we are not doing anything about real reform. The minute one goes to the heart of really cutting the umbilical cord between local government and national Government everybody finds a reason it should not be done.
Especially Fianna Fáil.
One has to look at the logic of what we are saying. I am trying to separate – I am quite open about this – the role of local government and national Government. It is clear from the debate that, psychologically, people do not want to see that cord cut. It is my view that it should be cut.
Senators have raised legitimate points about the role of local government and the over-centralisation of Government, which is at the heart of what I am trying to do. I believe it is wrong for the democratic society that exists in Ireland today. We are over-centralised. My colleagues have spoken about this in other debates. They are right. We must break that connection so that we can go forward and give real power to local government. The next big jump beyond this is to ensure local government has much wider revenue raising capacity and control over its resources than it currently has. That will never happen as long as Deputies and Senators remain members of local authorities and the national Parliament. They will not want that to happen because they will not want the local authorities—
The Minister is saying the dual mandate is holding us back.
The word "reform" is probably the most abused word over a range of issues. Everybody likes to talk about reform.
Especially Fianna Fáil.
It is a great corner to go to when one has nothing else to say. I never suggested when I brought it forward six or seven months ago, when I discussed it in public and with colleagues, that this was the package. This is the psychological break that needs to be made so that reforms can be brought in. I agree with Senator Bannon and my colleagues that, when this break is made, there will be questions with regard to support services and facilities for Senators. I accept that views must be expressed on that and that conditions must be changed in regard to the relationship Senator O'Meara mentioned in terms of communicating and meeting with the electorate.
I have spoken to Senators, some not too far from me in the House, who have not been in the local government structure for many years but have had no difficulty attending conferences around the country and communicating with the electorate. I have to communicate with an electorate of 100,000 people in one small area despite not being on the local county or city council. However, I have the methods and means to do that.
The Minister is their boss.
Members must understand their roles and how to develop them. I agree with much that Senator White said. It is not undemocratic but unhealthy that there are not enough women in public life.
It is undemocratic.
Political correctness does not frame my view but legitimacy, and the diversity that can bring to public life. I have spent time talking to women's groups and realise it is a difficult issue. Women need support and encouragement and I am happy to provide that. However, when an attempt is made to find women to go into politics, the number willing to do so melts away, which is disappointing. I am trying to do what the Senators have asked. I see a real opportunity with the ending of the dual mandate to get many more women into public life as county councillors are replaced. That would be a good thing not just as a gender issue, but in terms of the diversity of views, roles and knowledge it would bring.
It is to do with society.
We are arguing opposite points of view. I take the view that the dual mandate should end. That would be good for public life, local government, the Seanad and Dáil Éireann. It would be good for the enhancement of our respective roles that the structural cross-overs that exist will be removed. There will, of course, be complementary roles between the existence and demands of local and national government, and that is the direction we are going.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
I have a right to respond to a distorting remark from the Minister.
Acting Chairman
We have spent one and a quarter hours on this amendment.
My statement is being distorted and I have a right to respond.
Acting Chairman
The rules of the House are that it is the right of Senators to come back in if they wish. However, we are on Committee Stage and I remind Senators that they must address themselves only to the amendment under discussion. I ask them not to digress into unrelated matters.
The rules of the House clearly state that there would be no interjections when another Member is speaking, and that is common manners apart from being a rule. I ask all Senators to observe that.
I never said that local government politicians should not be paid but that local government positions should not be made full-time. Community involvement would be deterred if the posts were full-time. I also raised the financial feasibility of having 1,000 full-time political posts. I have noticed the Minister has kept quiet since he was questioned about this on radio. There was a reaction to the suggestion that there would be 1,000 full-time local government positions at a time when the Government is unable to employ more people in the public service. What of the lack of local government employees? I certainly did not say that people should not be paid. If they are in full-time posts, they should be paid for that. I question the suggestion that all local government posts should be full-time because it would deter participation by the community. That is the point I raised and the Minister knows that.
The Minister is taking power from local government. A Bill was put through the House only yesterday—
Acting Chairman
With respect—
I am responding to the Minister. You have a different policy for the Minister of State when he speaks than when I do. You are allowing the Minister to digress.
Acting Chairman
That is unrelated to the amendment.
It is not unrelated.
Acting Chairman
The power of local government is unrelated to this amendment which clearly deals with where the dual mandate abolition is to apply, whether to both Houses or just to the Dáil.
To finish, some 10% of places in local government will become available with the abolition of the dual mandate. That will do nothing for the participation of women and is a total red herring. How many women from Senator White's party were Oireachtas nominees in the Seanad elections?
Two.
That highlights Fianna Fáil policy regarding the participation of women. It is the choice of candidates, the parties and the public as to who gets elected and their gender. There is a constitutional provision that anybody can stand. The Minister said that the same people can stand for the Dáil and Seanad. Does he know that is not the case? One has to qualify for a Seanad panel, some people cannot run for certain panels and it is necessary to be nominated by various bodies or the Oireachtas. Anybody can run for the Dáil but that is not true of the Seanad.
Members are signing their death warrants if they do not oppose this section. It is interesting that the Acting Chairman and I both represent councillors from around the country on the Local Authority Members Association. He knows that councillors are the most underpaid section of the community for the hours they put into local government. There is no proper pension scheme in place for retiring council members and I hope the Minister will address that. It costs people money to serve on local authorities and it is something I want to see real change on in the near future.
This will bring change.
I hope the Minister will meet us on this matter shortly.
On the abolition of the dual mandate and the issue of reform which the Minister raised, it is clearly his philosophical position which is behind this legislation. He sees it as necessary to break the link between the national Government and Parliament and local councils yet, when he talks about that, he refers only to revenue raising issues. That gives an interesting insight into the Minister's thinking which is that, as soon as Oireachtas Members are out of local councils, he will bring in legislation – which he expects to be passed – to force local councils to be funded by local charges. In Britain, that is called a poll tax.
All Members are in favour of reform of local authorities but we are watching those authorities being emasculated, with powers taken away almost on a weekly basis—
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to keep to the amendment.
This is relevant to the amendment.
The Minister said that women candidates melt away when sought. The Minister should appoint a body to study why that is so and why, with 50% of the workforce now women, only 13% of Dáil members are women. There is something seriously wrong if women are melting away when there are 123 new opportunities available. A consultancy group should study why women are not going forward.
I was democratically elected by a group consisting almost totally of men, to which can be added the men who supported and believed in me all my life, and who elected me to this House.
It strikes me that the kind of sentiment I hear in Dublin City Council in relation to the powers of councillors is being perpetuated here. Senator O'Meara has confirmed that North Tipperary County Council is no different from Dublin City Council. I fully support the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's plans for local government reform. Councillors have to be constantly reminded that they cannot have it both ways as reform takes place and more powers are conferred. They cannot have jam on both sides. If the Minister is to confer more powers on local authorities, councillors from all parties in all parts of the country must accept that such powers are accompanied by more responsibility.
Acting Chairman
That is extraneous to the amendment.
It is a sad reflection on the Labour Party that its councillors on Dublin City Council and North Tipperary County Council want more and more powers but without an accompanying increase in responsibility.
Acting Chairman
The Senator's remarks do not relate to the amendment.
The Labour Party leadership on Dublin City Council has had only one ambition in relation to the council since 1999 – to bring it down on the issue of charges. The councillors in question do not want to accept responsibility. I welcome more power and more responsibility for councillors as part of meaningful reform.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to speak to the amendment which clearly relates to whether Senators will be affected by the dual mandate proposals.
The power of councillors which has been discussed is at the heart of the issue. I encourage the Minister who does not need much encouragement to continue to reform the local authorities. I acknowledge the need, mentioned in this section of the Bill, to separate powers while retaining strong links and I am confident that the Minister will do so by virtue of the assurances he has given.
He has not said that.
I remind the House that the opinions of the Commission on the Status of Women were kept in mind when plans to separate powers were being drawn up. The commission's second report strongly recommended the abolition of the dual mandate on the basis that it would facilitate the entry into politics of more women. It seems Senator O'Meara is showing scant regard, respect or acknowledgement for the commission's report.
I remind Senator Tuffy that I quoted Article 18.2 of the Constitution which says that "a person to be eligible for membership of Seanad Éireann must be eligible to become a member of Dáil Éireann". I quoted directly from the Constitution.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not introduced a package of local government reform with this Bill which abolishes the dual mandate. He said he wanted to cut the umbilical cord – the link between local and national government – as part of his plans to reform local government. Although he is willing to break the link, he does not seem to be prepared to introduce measures to reform local government, other than to bring forward a Bill to remove certain powers from local authority members. Members of local authorities and the Oireachtas – those with a dual mandate – have examined his plans to break the link between local and national government and give more powers to local authorities. We are surprised to find, however, that he has introduced a Bill which removes powers from members of local authorities. I was disappointed that he seemed to suggest that the 129 dual mandate holders were holding back local government reform.
I never said that.
That is exactly what the Minister said and I am disappointed by it. There are, at most, two, three or four dual mandate holders in each local authority. I cannot think of a Member of the Oireachtas who is holding back local government reform. The Minister's comments insinuated that local government reform would be hastened as soon as the link was broken. Why can local authorities not have the suggested new role while the dual mandate is still in place? We can decide whether the link should be broken at that stage. The Minister wants to break the link but is going down an alley and people are fearful because they do not know where it leads. A Bill before the other House removes powers from local authority members. The Minister has said he wants local authorities to be able to raise a significant amount of money through charges. Local authorities will meet new challenges, as they have in the past. Although the holders of dual mandates have been leaders at local authority level, the Minister seems to believe they are holding back local authority reform. I am disappointed that he has said this.
I agree with the Minister's statement that we have a very centralised form of government and, for that reason, expected that a series of local authority reforms would be included in the Bill. The Minister spoke about breaking the link but new regulations are needed as part of that process to allow members of local authorities to have access to county and city managers. When I raised this matter on Second Stage, the Minister mentioned he would introduce guidelines later in the year.
Acting Chairman
For the benefit of the Senator, the matter he has raised is relevant to section 3.
I am aware of that. I am speaking about the dual mandate and the link between local authorities and the Oireachtas, matters relevant to this section. Senator Fitzgerald mentioned people should vote in accordance with their responsibilities but two members of his party on Waterford City Council held the council to ransom by not voting for the Estimates.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator not to refer—
The Chair allowed a Member on the other side to refer to his council.
I hope they were not looking for more powers.
Acting Chairman
Senator Fitzgerald should not intervene.
These are the ones who were shouting for more powers also.
Acting Chairman
It is inappropriate to refer to people not present in the House.
I did not name anyone.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to speak to the amendment only. I will ask him to resume his seat if he continues in that vein.
The Chair is allowing Senators on the Government side to make such remarks.
Acting Chairman
I am not.
I have not mentioned any names, just as Senator Fitzgerald did not mention any names.
Acting Chairman
The Senator identified people.
Yes, I identified people, just as Senator Fitzgerald did.
Acting Chairman
Does the Senator wish to continue, strictly to discuss the amendment?
Yes. I do not favour the abolition of the dual mandate, especially in so far as Senators are concerned. Councillors elect Senators, with the exception of those appointed by the Taoiseach and the university Senators, and are represented by them in the House. The dual mandate should be maintained, especially for Senators. I realise it is not the view of many in my own party, including those who are councillors. I do not see where the demand has come from. I agree we should afford opportunities to women to enter politics if the dual mandate is abolished. There is no danger of women melting away, to which Senator White may have alluded. We have women of substance in both Houses and, please God, we will have more in the future.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
I withdraw the amendment but I would like the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly its Senators, to reconsider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 18, to delete "from being elected or co-opted to, or".
I would like to group amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to facilitate the House because they are related.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is an unfair provision preventing a person transferring from central to local government. This does not happen in other areas of government. We should not prevent a person in central Government standing in local government elections and vice versa, even if it means that he or she has to give up a seat. Otherwise we are implying that local government is not as important as central Government, which is not the case. A person should have a choice.
The wording of the legislation suggests that a Member of the Oireachtas will have to give up his or her seat before running in the next local elections. I believe that is how it will be interpreted legally and how a returning officer will interpret it. If I were running in a local election, I would have to give up my seat in the Seanad, cause a by-election and take the risk that I would not be elected. However, it would be reasonable to allow Members run without having to forfeit their seats.
The Minister's wording could lead to a constitutional challenge. There is a moral reason why somebody should be allowed transfer from central to local government. The Minister is detracting from the rights of Oireachtas Members, who might have a good legal case to make.
I and the other Members of the Oireachtas were all elected under the present regime and we understood that we would be entitled to run in the next local elections, but now that right is being taken from us. We were allowed run to become Members of Parliament without our knowing that we would not be allowed run for local government. That is why the Minister should allow people to choose, particularly in respect of the next local elections.
I want to remove the words "be elected". I am sure some people have wondered if Oireachtas Members would have a locus standi if they were making a constitutional challenge to the provisions in this Bill, if passed. What gives them a locus standi is the fact that they were elected under the present regime, thus putting them at a disadvantage.
I noticed that the Minister stated the European Parliament is allowed a derogation to allow Irish legislators and Members of Parliament to adjust. If the legislation is to be accepted, it should not be passed at least until the next general election or local elections in 2009. That will allow people to make a choice and adjust. From the Government's point of view, this will allow for all the legal issues to be thrashed out and solved. The Minister is allowing circumstances to arise in which there are good grounds for a legal challenge. If such a challenge is successful, we will all be left in a mess, particularly those who have given up their seats.
The Minister is putting considerable pressure on people to give up their seats early and they may well question his judgment on the matter at a later stage. If Members who have been elected under the present regime are allowed to run in the next local elections, they will have time to choose between local and national politics in elections thereafter and they will not lose out. My party will certainly consider an amendment to that effect on Report Stage. A similar logic applies to not including co-options.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete the following addition to the principal Act, which is part of the proposed section 13A:
(2) In respect of local elections to be held in the year 2004 and thereafter, section 13(1) shall be read as if the following were substituted for paragraph (e):
‘(e) is a member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, or'.”.
This amendment is necessary because it fits in with amendment No. 2. I do not understand why the above addition needs to be present because the provision in the proposed section 13(A)(1) is adequate. I oppose the proposed addition both technically and generally.
The Leader of the House always tells us we should raise issues we have raised on the Order of Business when the relevant Minister is present. When the Minister responds, will he let me know if there will be a local election boundary commission in operation before the local government elections? There should be. I represent Lucan, which has the fastest growing population in the State, and we need to know for certain if we will get an extra seat.
Acting Chairman
I allowed the Senator a little latitude.
She deserved it.
Senator Tuffy should be cautioned by the unfortunate experience of one of her predecessors, Deputy Tully, whose proposal on fixing boundaries was popularly referred to as the "Tullymander". The issue of boundaries is very sensitive—
The Senator is in Government.
—for all parties and politicians. There is merit in part of what Senator Tuffy stated. I cannot remember exactly what she said on Second Stage, but if I interpreted her correctly she referred to what appeared to be an anomaly, namely, that a sitting councillor can contest an Oireachtas election without having to resign although the reverse cannot occur. If that is the intention of the legislation, I am sympathetic to the case she is making. There appears to be an imbalance. I am not suggesting that the legislation should be altered to weaken the Minister's proposals, but I encourage him to consider an amendment that will provide a greater perceived balance because there is none at the moment.
If the dual mandate is abolished, which will happen if this Bill is passed, the anomaly referred to will be evident. The Minister has said on many occasions that he would like the role of a local authority member to become full-time. Quite a number of councillors work full-time and have no other employment while the Government pushes the notion that proper pension provision must be made for the future. Will those who become full-time local authority members be provided with pensions? The payment made to councillors at the moment is representational and they have no
right—
Acting Chairman
Can the Senator relate that to the amendment?
I am speaking to the amendment, albeit with a little latitude.
Acting Chairman
I did not like to stop the Senator, but I would like to see the relevance to the amendment.
I am sure everybody will take an interest in this. I would like to hear the Minister elaborate on the way councillors can use the representational payment to provide themselves with pensions. Some of them have no other employment and no other funding which means they will receive no pension other than a gratuity payment when they retire from a local authority. How might they provide for their retirement to ensure they do not become a burden on the State?
I agree wholeheartedly with the ably-put remarks of my colleague, Senator Tuffy. Local authorities are there to provide for development and to ensure there is an effective system of local governance in place throughout the land. The people who should decide whether we represent them at local, national or European level are the citizens of the State. They should also be permitted to choose whether or not we represent them at more than one level simultaneously. Some people are capable of taking on two roles and delivering very well in both spheres of action. Anyone who has visited a country which does not enjoy true democracy will know that its population is crying out for people power. It should be the citizen who decides through the ballot box who represents them and in what manner. If a representative is not doing his job locally and nationally the people will not be long turfing him out. True democracy leaves power in the hands of the people. It is wrong to do otherwise, which is why the Fine Gael group will oppose this section.
The gratuity pension payment has been the subject of hard and frequent campaigns by the local authority members' association. A number of people who lost their seats in the last local authority election had given between 25 and 35 years of service to local government, but they left the role without receiving a penny. That is a sad reflection on our society and our Parliament. These people worked hard on our behalf in a voluntary capacity at a time when there was no proper remuneration in place. I plead with the Minister to consider those people when he sets out to introduce a pension for local authority members. We live in a democracy and all people should be treated equally, whether they represent us in the Oireachtas or on local authorities. We must get this right for once and for all.
We have discussed these issues at length, but at the heart of the point being made is the question of whether or not we are making the break between local and national government. If we are, this Bill is the way to do it. Senator Tuffy has effectively proposed that we consider the matter for six years, instead of thinking about it for the next 12 months, which begs the question "How long is a piece of string?" We either do this or we do not.
I agree with Senator Bannon's remarks to the effect that it is the public who should decide who represents them. Nobody is prevented from going before the people to seek election to any chamber, be it local, national or European. I am asking people to choose in which capacity they wish to serve. I know of no Senator or Deputy who would stand for local election and subsequently decide to leave the Oireachtas having been successful. It would be utterly disingenuous to pretend to the public that you would not leave the local authority having been selected to enter the Dáil. They know you will leave the local authority system and that, through co-option, they will find themselves represented by someone for whom they did not vote. If we go down that road, we will bring terrible discredit to the political system. This Bill copperfastens the separation of local and national representation which is something we either do, or do not do. If a judge wants to stand for election, he must resign from his judicial role and the same is true of a garda or a civil servant. Some people have done it. Let us not pretend that politicians are unique and precious. If the Cathaoirleach wished to stand, he would have to give up his position as Chair of the Seanad. We have gone a long way down this road already and the provisions of this Bill represent the end of the beginning of a process. The right balance has been struck and we should not be disingenuous with the public.
Senator Tuffy has been honest and up-front in saying that she disagrees fundamentally with my position. I accept that and I respect the point she argues. Not to make a political point, but as I understand it, the stated positions of the Labour Party and Fine Gael is to end the dual mandate. I have spoken to the leaders of both parties individually—
We seek proper reform.
It would be unfair of me to quote what they said, but I can say that they did not convey to me that there had been a major policy shift with regard to the dual mandate.
We seek that in the context of proper reform.
If the Senators were serious about reform, they would support the provisions I seek to introduce. In this case, they wish to know the result of the race before they allow their horse to run. This is an evolutionary process.
I am a member of the fourth generation of my family to have served successively in local government and not one of us, up to and including myself, ever got a single penny out of the system. We were there to serve, which is what we did. Rightly, my predecessor, Deputy Dempsey, recognised as Minister that the world had changed and that it was not financially reasonable or possible for councillors to support themselves without some income. That is the clear context in which I am introducing these reforms. I am not saying that every councillor will serve full-time, but the nature of the role suggests that such a course may be unavoidable. If a proper system is introduced with a full remuneration package equivalent to the salary of a Member of the Oireachtas then like any job there will be a salary and a pension package. I do not disagree; that is the way it should be.
I accept where the Senators are coming from in their arguments. I disagree with them. Their party seems to have a view the same as mine.
I wish to respond briefly to the Minister's points. We are not making the break between local government and national politics because we are allowing councillors to run for election in national politics. It is a one-sided break and that is unfair. It is not unforeseeable that somebody would wish to transfer from national to local politics, particularly people who have come in under this regime as it stands. The Minister says we can make that choice but he is not letting us do so. The way in which the legislation is worded will not allow us make that choice.
People go from the European Parliament to the Dáil and this has happened in the case of members of the Minister's party. It is not inconceivable that a person would change from the larger level of participation to a smaller local pool. The Minister is betraying an idea that local government is somehow lesser. If it came to the crunch, I would consider going for the local elections if I had the choice and making the move. If I give up my seat in this House the present legislation allows the Government to fill my seat and that is a fundamental unfairness in the system.
I believe civil servants should be allowed stand for election and not have to give up their jobs. They could be given leave of absence, as is the practice with other public servants. In terms of transferring from national to local politics, the Minister foresees an enhanced local democracy as a result. If that is the case, it will be very attractive for a person to transfer from national to local government. I am pleased that Senator Fitzgerald sees merit in my proposal. I hope the Minister and his party will reconsider the issue.
I have a problem with the whole section. There is a presumption of constitutionality in everything we do and I have a real difficulty with the legislation from that point of view. My personal view is that it is good that the roles are complementary. I can appreciate that some people have a different point of view. It should be dealt with on a party political basis and perhaps on a mutual party political basis. The Minister has not referred to my other proposal because I have not put it forward as an amendment but I am flagging that I may consider changing the date the next time.
The Minister made the point that civil servants are not allowed to contest elections. I understand that certain grades are not allowed and that not all civil servants are debarred.
Some very junior grades are allowed.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
I am withdrawing it but I ask the Minister to reconsider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question put: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Tá
|
Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Daly, Brendan.Dooley, Timmy.Feeney, Geraldine.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Henry, Mary.Kenneally, Brendan.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry. |
Lydon, Don.Minihan, John.Moylan, Pat.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Ross, Shane.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.White, Mary M.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Níl
|
Bannon, James.Bradford, Paul.Browne, Fergal.Burke, Paddy.Burke, Ulick.Coghlan, Paul.Coonan, Noel.Cummins, Maurice. |
Finucane, Michael.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila.Tuffy, Joanna. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators Bannon and U. Burke.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 4 and all may be considered together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 33 and 34 and in page 4, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"(2) Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas shall be provided with all documentation that a councillor is entitled to."
Oireachtas Members should automatically receive any local committee or subcommittee reports which directly affect their county where it is important for them to know what is happening. They must be kept up to date if they are to hold effective clinics. Similarly, all reports should be drafted in the knowledge that Oireachtas Members are subject to time constraints. They should, therefore, be concise and include summaries. They should also clearly outline the policy of the local authority. While we do not wish to interfere, we should be in a position to understand the policies and deliberations of local authorities. Reports and minutes received by authorities should be indexed by subject matter, service committee, electoral area and so on. These are important provisions. I ask the Minister to accept the amendments.
I understand the Minister has made a commitment to ensuring full documentation is provided. Access is also important. I hope the Minister will respond positively.
I have listened with great interest to the debate on this aspect and intend to introduce an appropriate amendment on Report Stage to address the concerns raised. It will insert a new expanded section to replace section 3. The matter will be addressed by way of statutory regulations as opposed to guidelines. I hope the amendment will be seen as an attempt to deal with the issue in a fair and balanced manner.
Will the Minister take these amendments into consideration?
I will take everything into consideration. There is much validity in what has been said, both in this House and elsewhere. There will be a full debate on my proposals on Report Stage.
Will the regulations be published on Report Stage?
On Report State I will propose the insertion of a new section. Issues may arise regarding the statutory regulations but the key provision will be a repeal of section 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"(5) Each local authority shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a copy of its annual report not later than 3 months following adoption by each local authority.".
At present most annual reports are received 12 months too late, which is unacceptable. A period of three months should be sufficient as would allow time for printing and distribution following adoption.
It is standard practice for statutory bodies to submit annual reports to the Oireachtas which should receive copies of local authority reports if it does not already do so. It would give Members the opportunity to raise contentious issues for debate.
I support the amendment. Although we rarely agree, I respect the Minister because he engages with issues. I have never seen him hide behind obscurities. If he has ideas, he lets us know. Politics is well served by that approach.
On every occasion where legislation passed by the House requires the submission of reports, Senator Quinn has sought to impose a time limit for publication. I have tested the patience of the Chair by requesting that annual reports from 1999 be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas this year. Every public body should produce its annual reports and accounts within the statutory framework pertaining to public limited companies. It is nonsense to suggest they could not do so. The Revenue Commissioners would not tolerate it if companies made their returns three years late. I ask the Minister to raise this issue with the Government. Public bodies cannot be efficient if they are unable to report on their activities within two or three months.
I hope the Minister will look at this issue. We would like to receive the report as early as possible. While I do not blame local authorities for my experience, I know that the report of the Inspector of Mental Hospitals is one that comes late to health boards. It is normal to be told when one receives the report that some of the improvements have been made and that the report is a year or two out of date. If it is to be relevant, it should be more recent. Perhaps the Minister will look at this issue.
I understand the logic behind the amendment which would insert a new subsection (5) in section 3 of the Bill, as published. It seeks to have local authority annual reports laid before both Houses. I have already indicated my intention to bring forward a new version of section 3 by way of amendment on Report Stage which will provide for the making of regulations. I propose to deal with the matter of annual accounts in this way. I hope to deal with it more effectively rather than just accept this proposal. There should be a clear direction through the regulations that Deputies must be furnished directly with a copy of annual reports.
I agree with Senator Ryan about the timeframe. We have had this discussion at Government level a number of times recently. It is impossible for us to have debate on a topical issue if the only information available from the organisation concerned is three years out of date. The whole organisation could have changed and we would have no way of knowing this. The debate would be held in a vacuum without the real facts. I am determined that all reports will have to be produced within a matter of months of the year's closure in order that we can deal properly with matters. The thought has struck me in regard to the time frame that it is a matter for local authority members to direct their managers and set their own rules. I do not want to be caught dictating matters but it should be clear that we need a time frame. I will return to this issue on Report Stage.
This is something that comes up at our local authority members' association meetings. It is important to have a time limit from the date the annual report is adopted to when it is made available. On some councils copies will be made available 18 months after a report has been adopted. This is unacceptable because the report is outdated by which time a second annual report should be available. I would welcome a time limit being imposed. It is the local authority's function to deal with this and managers should be advised to do so. The elected representatives are not the ones who make the decision. We, too, would like to see reports distributed as quickly as possible after adoption. While council members should insist on this, there should also be some provision in the local government reform document in regard to a time limit for publication and distribution.
I was not aware of this but the Local Government Act 2001 does set time limits for the production of annual reports to be approved by elected members. The time frame is about four months. Therefore, the accounts should be laid before members by April of the following year. Some councils are achieving this target. Perhaps those Senators who are councillors should raise the issue. This is provided for in the 2001 Act.
I would not push it if I was the Minister.
Would the Minister consider making it three months rather than four months?
I am saying by 1 April, which is three months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Would it be possible, without this amendment, for people to end up contesting and remaining on two county councils? The amendment says it is simply to extend something—
I see no amendment proposed on section 6.
It is the amendment in the Bill to local elections regulations, section 6(e) which states that where, at an election, a person is elected as a member for two or more local authorities, the person shall declare which one of those authorities the person chooses to represent. Without this, would it be possible for people to be a member of two different county councils? The explanatory memorandum suggests this is simply bringing one piece of legislation into line with another. I am just curious and do not mean to hold up the House.
This is just to bring clarity. The person must choose. By doing it this way we bring certainty into which authority the person chooses.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, line 3, to delete paragraph (b).
Where a person is qualified to be nominated for the position of cathaoirleach, it is important that he or she should have served at least five years as an elected member of the local authority. There is a genuine fear among local authority members that a whizz kid could buy his or her way into office by pouring money into an election campaign. He or she, however, would be at a disadvantage in regard to his or her knowledge of local government. It would also disadvantage candidates with experience of and a genuine interest in local government. It is important we consider this.
The Senator is discussing amendment No. 14. We are discussing amendment No. 11 tabled by both Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The Labour Party opposes the repeal in section 7 of the Bill of the provisions of the principal Act providing for direct election of county and city cathaoirligh in 2004. The relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2001 are principally contained in Chapter 3 of Part 5 of that Act. The combined effect of the Fine Gael amendments, Nos. 11 and 15, would be to limit direct election to Dublin City and Cork City Councils only.
The Labour Party opposes section 7 of the Bill and presumably, therefore, wants direct elections of cathaoirligh, yet, as we know, it opposed the section providing for the direct election of cathaoirligh when the legislation was introduced. There has obviously been a change of view. The elimination of the dual—
The Minister is great at selecting quotations.
That is accepted by the Senator's colleagues.
I mentioned this before. The Minister will have to be careful.
The Senator's colleagues accept there is a different point of view.
The Minister is a past master at this now.
The elimination of the dual mandate as proposed will in itself bring about significant change to the local government system and allow for an influx of fresh blood, with the opportunity for councillors to participate in a fuller and more meangingful fashion with SPCs, information training and back up as well. We will also open the system to wider representation by women and young people. I genuinely feel these changes need time to bed down. The last thing I want to do is overload the system without proper review and consideration.
As I have already indicated, the Bill represents a single but important step in the process of renewing local government and a major change agenda will be promoted over the next few years. The role of councillors will be properly addressed within that context. Even though the changes were made in the last Bill, no power went with the directly elected mayor. If the council decided to do one thing, what would the mayor do, as he or she had no power to do anything as it stood? I am not wedded one way or the other but what is being done now is the correct approach.
We do not have a presidential type system of government here, either locally or nationally. The cathaoirleach or the mayor should emerge from the collective will of the democratically elected groupings, as the Taoiseach does in the context of Government. Unlike America and other countries, we do not have a presidential system separate from the government system. We should have one or the other. The way we have it is the right way to go.
It is interesting from the Fine Gael point of view that it proposes directly elected chairs for Cork and Dublin. Is that the view of councillors in those cities? I have met many of Senator Bannon's council colleagues in Cork and Dublin and they have never conveyed to me that they want directly elected chairs.
I referred to two aspects of this issue yesterday. First, I said I was opposed to the idea of a directly elected mayor and did not see evidence at any level of politics or community justifying it. Second, I said I was supportive of continuity for the chair. Senator Browne legitimately asked whether there was a conflict in what I had said. I suggest to him, through his colleague, that I do not believe the two views I hold are mutually exclusive. In fact they are complementary and compatible.
At Oireachtas level we have chosen never to go down the road of presidential elections for the Cathaoirleach or the Ceann Comhairle. I have never heard any justification as to why that should be the case, yet the system works well. As Members we would resent any suggestion that it should be left to the people to determine who should be our chairperson. That would apply equally to Members of the other House where I served for 15 years. I cannot contemplate Members there rushing to the barricades to support a presidential style election for Ceann Comhairle.
On the question of any fears or concerns people may have about the need for continuity to be embraced in a presidential style election, there are two examples in the Houses to support the view that one does not necessarily presuppose the other. We have a tradition here. To allay any concerns people may have about a chairman of a council providing continuity for the term or otherwise of the council, having been elected by its members, with respect I remind Members, in regard to the term of a Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, that the Seanad may, at any time, by resolution, of which seven clear days notice of motion has been given, remove the Cathaoirleach from office. We would never contemplate that in your case, but that power is available and could equally apply at council level.
We need it too. We tried it once and succeeded.
I humbly suggest to the Minister, as he has the opportunity to do so, that we could achieve the objective of continuity for our chairs, to which all councils aspire, for reasons of effectiveness and efficiency and proper representation for councillors on the floor of the council chamber and at the same time retain the present system. In the event of any fears people may have about a chair getting too arrogant, the safeguards exist in terms of the system of election for both Houses of the Oireachtas and in the Standing Orders that pertain to ourselves.
It was part of the Local Government Act 2001 to delete that particular section. The Minister and Fianna Fáil Members spoke earlier about innovation in politics. That is an issue that should be looked at in the cities of Dublin and Cork on a trial basis.
Let them be the guinea pigs.
The last time round there was a provision in the Local Government Act 2001 regarding directly elected mayors and chairs throughout the country.
Did it start with Longford?
The proposal lacked real powers. I would like to see councillors in a particular borough council in Dublin and Cork decide the function of mayor on a trial basis.
Members expressed their real concerns the last time on the whole issue of directly elected mayors. While it was one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill it made no reference to what powers those directly elected chairs or mayors would have. The powers to be given to the directly elected mayors in, say, Dublin and Cork, should be decided by the councils. This should be done on a trial basis and if it fails the legislation can be amended.
How would it be paid for? By increasing charges?
I would not want mayors in every local authority because the population would not warrant a whole series of mayors. Places such as Paris and Brussels have mayors. When we set up the confederation of European councillors we were met by the mayor. It is perceived as an important position and brings with it great responsibility in most European cities. It is the mayor who meets visiting dignitaries The office is a position of power and is respected throughout Europe. Perhaps it should be tried in Dublin.
It has been tried in London where the mayor is credited with preventing traffic gridlock in central London. He is bringing forward innovative proposals and has the support of his council. It is an issue that should be looked at but not necessarily written in stone and real powers should be invested in that position by the entire body of the council.
I compliment the Minister on responding to the wishes of the councillors throughout Ireland. When I canvassed for the Seanad last year that was the major issue brought to my attention by councillors. They said that arrangement would mean that rural areas would never have an opportunity to elect a cathaoirleach or mayor.
I was not talking about rural areas and I made that clear.
The Senator has double standards in this regard. One year he is for them and the next year he is against them. The Senator is in favour of them again.
The Minister has brought great clarity to the question. If one were to take it to its logical conclusion, as the Minister has done, what role would the directly elected mayor have in reality? He or she could be in a position where they would have no group supporting them within the council. They would then have separate policies and views from those of the county manager and councillors and would be isolated.
I will clarify the situation. The person from the largest area of population will have the best opportunity of getting elected. The person from the small, rural, north Roscommon villages of Keadue or Arigna would have great difficulty getting elected from a county-wide point of view.
I am not talking about counties.
It would be far more difficult to get elected in Mount Cashel than in Longford town.
Please listen. I am not talking about Longford town.
That is reality.
We have two mayors in Longford.
The amendment refers to Dublin and Cork.
To put things in context, that would be a surplus appointment given the cost of management of local authorities. The Lord Mayors of Dublin and Cork are doing an excellent job. I have never heard any complaints about the conduct of mayors. Having the position rotated every year brings in people with fresh ideas and new attitudes.
I commend the Minister on the overall thrust of what he said, though not in relation to the abolition of the dual mandate. I support this provision. We do not need a change in Dublin and Cork. It is too costly to experiment with the idea of directly elected mayors. That is a ridiculous way of doing business.
I am not sure if my party was opposed to this provision when it was originally mooted. However, I know from talking to people in my party that it is an idea which gained persuasiveness once introduced. The former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, introduced this new provision to achieve a power balance between the manager and the mayor, given that the mayor would have a certain moral authority in having a mandate from the people. I see a great deal of merit in that. Local government reform and shifting power away from managers is a complicated issue. This would be one way of beginning to shift that power.
We all know the current situation is unsatisfactory. It is hard for mayors as opposed to management of councils to establish themselves. They need time to find their feet. Many people feel their year in office is driven by council management. Much of the work done by current mayors is good. I do not have a problem with the current system but this is a good suggestion which is worth trying.
This system was only recently introduced by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government and we are taking it away before we have seen how it works, the main reason being that the Government is afraid of who will be elected to the positions. That is the reality. I can understand those fears but it brings us back to treating the electorate as mature adults and allowing them to take the consequences of their actions. We should go ahead with this proposal.
There is a great deal of merit in Senator Bannon's amendment. I am not so sure I would have named the local authorities but the idea of trying it on a pilot basis is good. I am not sure if it could have been done by way of regulation. The Minister should rethink his decision to abolish this.
The parliamentary system has been referred to. Local government is different because there are no Ministers at that level. Mayors do not have the same powers as the Taoiseach in terms of local government. The UK and other countries operate a parliamentary system for electing the Prime Minister and they have directly elected mayors. Many good things have been done by directly elected mayors. If we really wanted to shake up local government, that was one way to try it. It was quite a cautious move because we were not giving him or her enormous powers.
This proposal was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were in power with the Independents the last time they put forward this idea. The Government has changed its mind but they cannot knock this. With all the reservations I have as a county councillor about who might be elected, I think it is a good initiative which is worth trying.
We are not introducing a new position of mayor; all we are doing is changing the electorate. This position would have captured the imagination of the people and would have increased people's interest in local government. Most people in Dublin know their local county councillors but I do not think many people outside the city of Dublin would be able to name their mayor. That does not take away from the work he does. That happens because the people did not elect the person. If people played a role in electing the mayor they might take more interest in the position and hold it more accountable. It might also capture their imagination in terms of participation in local government and the election process.
I support, in principle, the Fine Gael amendment. The Labour Party view is that the position should not be abolished. A compromise would be to try this idea on a pilot basis.
The Minister spoke about reform of local authorities and county councils, the elimination of the dual mandate and defining the powers of the local authorities. I eagerly await the day when the people in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway can elect their own mayor.
We might include Waterford too.
It will define the role. There are major examples of icon mayors throughout the world, such as Mayor Giuliani, who have defined a city. These mayors have been given powers, but the power of the mayor here is confusing. I would be supportive of such a reform in the future.
It was an idea that I felt would bring about a fundamental shift of executive powers from the manager. I am not saying this should apply across the country but we should operate a pilot scheme in, perhaps, Dublin and Cork which would show a shift of power from managers to directly elected mayors.
The Senator has made that point already. There is no need for repetition.
I deeply resent the suggestion that the councillors of Dublin be used as guinea pigs by the Member from Longford. This amendment is extremely divisive. That Dublin and Cork should be used as guinea pigs for a pilot system is unacceptable. There are huge implications for democracy and for our councillors. Our councillors in Dublin are being told that they have to take a step back and that the people will decide on a short-term, pilot basis whether their decisions in the past have been wise or foolish. If there is a body of opinion promoting directly elected mayors and it wants pilot programmes to be initiated, then I would respectfully suggest to Senator Bannon that he start with his own councillors to see if they share his opinions and if there is consensus .
Of all the things I have done in this Bill, this is the one on which I can solemnly say there is political consensus. Every politician wanted this removed. We can have political arguments and make political points but let us not talk in a way which does not represent the facts, and I include, with all due respect, the representative body with which the Senator is very much involved and the General Council of County Councillors.
It is a great privilege to be selected to go before the people and it is an incredible honour and privilege to be elected by them. When the people elect someone under the present system, they de facto deem them fit to be mayor or cathaoirleach of their city or county. I do not envisage a situation in which I would turn around to councillors and say that they are good enough to be elected to the council chamber with all that goes with that but that they are not good enough to be mayor or cathaoirleach of their city or county. That would be wrong.
Directly elected mayors have been talked about but the situation in major cities is completely different and I have no difficulty with that. It is a completely different electoral system. In our case, we would be taking powers from city managers. However, the most significant effect of bringing in directly elected mayors would be to take powers away from the council chamber because we would have to vest the ultimate position in the mayor to make it effective.
Members should not be fooled by the situation in London. The position of mayor of London still exists and it is not Ken Livingstone who occupies a quasi-political position created in the greater London area with an almost ministerial mandate. The position of mayor of London and the council chamber still exists and they guard their power and the tradition that goes with it extremely well as we do in our council chambers, particularly in the premier ones – the five county borough councils – though I mean no disrespect to the other ones. We must think these issues through.
I respect my predecessor for moving in this direction because I think he saw a goal. I am not totally against the point but given our current position and what we are trying to do, this is the way to go. The system whereby councillors are elected by their peers to the position of cathaoirleach or mayor of their council, a position for which they are deemed eligible by virtue of their election by the people, is valuable and cohesive.
I disagree that people do not know who their mayor is. I visit counties and cities where I find that while people may not be able to name all the councillors, by and large, they generally know the cathaoirleach or mayor. As we move forward, this issue will undoubtedly feed back into the system but let us not be disingenuous with each other in this regard. I accept in good faith what people said previously. I responded positively on this issue to every political party, councillor and political organisation only to come into the House to be told people are against it. I do not accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8. Section 24(1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of subsection (1) and the substitution of the following:
(1) For the purposes of this section and subject to this Part and regulations made under it, every person whose name is on the register of local government electors prepared under Part II of the Electoral Act 1992, for the time being in force is entitled to vote at the poll.'.".
There is a difficulty in some parts of the country providing full voting opportunities for staff at polling stations. In local elections in particular, people working as presiding officers in counties may not get to vote on the day. An amendment is necessary to afford everyone on the register the opportunity to vote. People have told me they could not vote on the day because—
This has already been dealt with in the 2001 Act. People now have the right to get a postal vote if working outside their area as returning officers etc., on polling day. It has been dealt with but perhaps it has not come into effect because we have not had elections. It is a good amendment but it is already covered by the Electoral Act.
It was not in place at the last local elections.
If outside their area, those working as returning officers etc., are entitled to a postal vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8. Section 27(b) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following new paragraph:
‘(b) At the poll for a local election no other poll shall be held.'.”.
The local elections coincide with European Parliament elections but it is important we do not hold a referendum on the same day because it complicates things. It is important there is a good turn out for the local elections, which there always has been, and for the European Parliament elections. If a referendum is held on the same day, as has happened, one of the ballot papers will be cast aside. After people fill in one or two ballot papers, they become confused and do not fill in the third. If one has ever sat in on a count following the European Parliament elections, one sees that a number of ballot papers are not marked.
A great deal of confusion is caused on election day if there are too many ballots. The number of ballots should be limited to two – the European Parliament and the local elections. If a referendum is held, it can distract from local issues being put forward by candidates to the local authorities. It is important we get a good result and that issues are properly debated. People have enough on their plates with the local and European Parliament elections because there are European and local issues to be digested. Referendums are often quite controversial, so we should not have to deal with them on the same day. Members of the electorate have approached me and said it is not a good idea to hold too many polls on the one day.
I see Senator Bannon's point, but I do not agree with him. In the past people have said to me that if the European Parliament elections had not been held on the day of the local elections, the turnout for European Parliament election would have been very low. There is a tendency for people to be a bit removed from the European scene. We hold the local elections every five years along with the European Parliament elections. The system in place at present is quite good because it ensures a good turnout for the local elections as well as the European elections.
I understand the point with regard to referenda held on the same day in respect of which the Minister might consider that no more than two polls be held on the same day. With regard to council elections, there might be three different polls – town council, county council and European Parliament – but that should be the maximum.
There might be a misunderstanding but the effect of the amendment would be to make sure no election other than a local election could take place.
That is what I intended.
I accept from what the Senator has said that the amendment would have that effect. We are trying to encourage the electorate to vote on polling day. There is no conflict between a European and local election which can be complementary in that they deal with clearly defined and different issues. People understand what they vote for on the day.
While I am conscious that an issue can arise if different referenda on the Constitution are held on the same day, I would not like to close this off. Odd issues arise which can easily be dealt with on election day such as a bye-election in one constituency that might take place on the same day. It is a question of trying to get people out to vote and encouraging activity. There is also a cost efficiency element, not that I would be driven by that purpose. Flexibility must be maintained in the system with regard to unforeseen polls or urgent referenda. I can remember being confused on one occasion when I voted in several referenda on the same day. I was not sure what I was doing in the polling station, from which there is a lesson to be learned.
To have local and European elections on the same day is what the Senator wants, although the amendment is not to that effect. I will leave the matter for now but will keep it under review.
There is merit in what Senator Bannon has to say but there are also practical considerations in this regard. It was suitable and appropriate to hold the referendum on local government on the same day as the local elections. There should be a balance. Several referenda should not be held on the same day and we should ensure the people are not confused.
I thought the work of the Referendum Commission during the second referendum on the Nice treaty was very effective, including its message that people have a right to vote. That would be a good message to send at the time of the local elections. I have not analysed how effective it was but felt it was an effective campaign. While it was neutral, it was about the importance of ensuring the people had their say and exercised their right to vote. It should be considered at election time also, including for local elections.
To clarify the situation, I thought the amendment suggested that a referendum should not be held on the same day as a local or European poll. That should be considered and was what I thought was contained in the amendment. I apologise if the word "European" was left out. There is confusion when a referendum is held on the same day as the European and local polls. The Minister should consider this. I will be amending the amendment for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.–Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2001 is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following new subsection:
‘(2) For a person to qualify to be nominated for the position of Cathaoirleach, he or she must have served at least 5 years as an elected member of a local authority.'.".
I want to add the proviso that if a person wishes to qualify for the position of cathaoirleach, he or she should have served five years as an elected representative. There is a fear that directly elected chairpersons might not be experienced and it has been a matter of contention. There is no better training ground for taking on a position in local government than the local authority. There is a fear that whizz kids or personalities might spend a lot of money to buy their way into office. That would put good candidates at a huge disadvantage. The amendment attempts to deal with the whizz kids or mavericks who might come from working on a television show, or elsewhere, to take over a local authority.
I will not go down that road. I cannot accept the amendment, though I understand the Senator's point which was fairly made. As Senator Moylan said, a situation might arise where a new council was elected but could not have a mayor for five years. A bigger danger would be the creation of different classes of councillors, some of whom would be eligible for the position of cathaoirleach while others would not. That is the wrong approach. Many people have been elected to Dáil Éireann who became Cabinet Ministers on their first day. While some have been good, others have been disastrous. While some lasted a long time as Ministers, others did not but that is not the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.–Section 63(1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following new paragraph:
‘(b) to carry out all functions relating to local policing policy, education including pre-school education, re-instatement of local health committees, the distribution of lottery grants and local development, including leader programmes.'.”.
This amendment suggests that a new section should be added requiring the devolution to local authorities of functions, including but not limited to those outlined in the amendment – local policing, education, including pre-school education, reinstatement of local health committees, the distribution of lottery funds and local development, including Leader programmes.
The number of quangos set up in particular counties with huge budgets and which are not accountable to the general public was discussed. My party believes in real reform of local government which is the reason it did not run with the Local Government Bill. It was felt the necessary reforms were not being put in place. Reform should be made at local level where it concerns citizens. In Denmark's system of local government, decisions on all matters are taken at local and community level. This needs to happen in Ireland because we have one of the more centralised systems of government. Some years ago rates, a source of funding for local government, were abolished.
Does the Senator want to bring them back?
I am not implying that. I am not in government. A lot of power was taken from local authority members and given to central government and brought no real reform in its place. It is important that power is devolved to local level and that real functions are delegated to local communities and elected representatives who are capable of dealing with many of the issues involved. They know where lottery funding should go within communities and counties. It is an issue that should be decided locally.
Regarding local health committees, elected representatives know the real needs of areas in terms of community health services. Local health committees served us well. Their members were committed to providing a better health structure in the counties concerned. Elected representatives also know the needs of areas in terms of education as they are dealt with weekly at clinics.
Although policing policy should be decided on a national level, local representatives should have a role in determining local services, such as the distribution of CCTV cameras. Local authorities should be allowed to make such decisions, in conjunction with the local Garda Síochána. I do not wish to limit the policy areas that should be decided locally to those listed in the amendment, as others could be examined.
A proper system of efficient local government should be established. We should adopt a system of local government similar to that in Denmark, which I have always admired. There can be a greater sense of communication with the electorate if basic decisions are taken at a local level. People can access information about controversial matters such as waste management if they are being dealt with locally. It seems that matters are decided over the heads of local people when too many decisions are taken at national level. It is important that we take steps to ensure local authorities can become genuine councils of the people.
I am disappointed by this Local Government Bill, as there is not enough meat on its bones. I urge the Minister, Deputy Cullen, to bring forward amendments to it that will facilitate real and honest reform of local government. The steps that have been taken so far represent a piecemeal approach. This matter needs to be addressed in the near future, rather than putting it on the long finger.
I support this proposal, especially its principle, and I agree with Senator Bannon's comments. This amendment could represent the start of the process of increasing the powers of local authorities, but much more needs to be done. The matters mentioned in the amendment are suitable for local authority consideration – I agree that a form of local accountability in relation to policing needs should be introduced. The shortfall in child care provision is another matter that could be addressed by local authorities.
Councils should have a role in the provision of local transport, which is not mentioned in the amendment. Many public transport initiatives could be taken at a local level. Local authorities have many powers in relation to the provision of roads, but they do not have any powers in relation to public transport, which is something of an anomaly. Planning matters are linked to public transport. Those who are responsible for such matters, including the provision of houses and the development of communities, do not have control over the transport provisions for such communities.
I support this amendment, particularly its principle. The Minister should go further by considering the devolution of more powers to local government. Not only would such a move give additional powers to local authorities, but it would also solve a problem in terms of national Government. Local authorities should be given definite powers in relation to areas which are falling through the gaps.
I have listened to the comments of Senators Bannon and Tuffy. I presume the amendment has been tabled as a means of raising the issue, as it will not deliver anything if it is accepted. It is a wish list that has not benefited from any substantial thought. I will give the Senator the benefit of the doubt by saying that he may have put down the amendment to raise the subject of substantial local government reform, which I favour.
During this debate, I have been as guilty as anyone else of not mentioning the many positive developments in terms of local government under successive Governments, particularly in the last decade. Many of these developments have resulted from the work of Department of the Environment and Local Government officials and have been aided by changes in local government structures. Many important schemes, such as the Leader programme, county and city enterprise boards and area partnerships, have been established under different Departments and contain local members. I mentioned earlier that I sit on a Cabinet sub-committee which examines these disparate organisations and is trying to bring them all under the county development board structure which, ultimately, will be under the local authority structure. I have said many times that I have presented this Bill as a specific and substantive reform which will help me to do what I want in many other areas. I never pretended or suggested that this Bill would be the vehicle for the other reforms, as the time for them has not yet come. Senators are aware that a substantive review is under way.
I was taken by two of Senator Bannon's remarks about Denmark, a country I happen to know extremely well. Certain reforms in relation to the dual mandate there were facilitated by the abolition of the Danish Senate. They did it the other way around by getting rid of Senators.
I was not aware of that.
They decided that an Upper House was unnecessary. Perhaps Senators should be careful when referring selectively to Denmark, as it now has a unicameral system. I agree with the Senator about Denmark's system of local government and I have used that example for many years. I am frustrated in one sense, as it should be stated that Denmark has such a good standard of waste management, as well as other facilities such as swimming pools, community halls and indoor and outdoor gymnasiums because households there pay the equivalent of about €5,000 or €6,000 in local taxation each year. I know certain Danish villages intimately, as I have been going to that country for about 25 years.
The system of decentralisation in Denmark works because local representatives have substantial revenue raising powers and local people are willing to pay high rates of tax. Disingenuous political leadership, which is widespread in Ireland, is not found in Denmark. It is unfortunate that many politicians here play on the public's fears in relation to a range of issues from a political perspective. I do not blame the Opposition, as all parties have been guilty of it over the years. A serious environmental price is now being paid for such behaviour in some areas, but we have to move on. I will support Senator Bannon fully if he supports a move to the Danish model. I hope he will explain to people that while rates are not being re-introduced, they will have to pay water charges, service charges, community funds and other charges, and the power to decide how the money is spent will be retained at a local level. Such a system operates in Denmark, the other Scandinavian countries and Germany. If we choose to adopt such an approach, we will have to take the responsibility that goes with it.
Community care, tourism promotion and industrial and enterprise functions should be administered locally, as well as the matters mentioned in my amendment. The agriculture committee should be restored to local authorities, as they served rural communities well in the past. New technologies are needed to improve the delivery of services by local authorities. A specific budget should be allocated to councils for their full terms, rather than the current piecemeal approach which means they have to plan for one year at a time. If a council is elected for five years, its budget for the full term should be made known to it so it can provide good local government. Nobody in Ireland would object to paying tax if they knew the tax receipts were to be spent locally. Most of the taxes collected are spent in certain areas of the country and people in rural areas feel they are being neglected and that funds are not being distributed evenly.
The community fund system in Denmark is working very well because people benefit from money directed back into their own communities. They have no objection to paying for a good service, and if proposals are made to enhance that service they will pay even more. Our present taxation regime is crippling people with taxes and they see no real benefits. It vexes them and turns them off.
We have some of the lowest tax rates in the world.
A myth is being perpetuated that councillors are not taking responsibility, but this is not true because every local authority has a waste charge now. The Minister might not like the fact that dissent is being expressed.
It is largely being carried by Fianna Fáil councillors throughout the country.
That is not true. People in my party voted for charges.
Some did.
Many did so because they believe in charges and local taxes. The Minister is misrepresenting people who disagree. I know there are different views among such people, but they largely disagree with the type of tax regime that obtains. They are not saying they do not want to pay the taxes but are concerned about the injustice of taxes that are not income related or use related.
The waiver system is not fair. People in my county council area are excluded from receiving waivers if they are in receipt of any other income. If they are on a small occupational pension, they do not qualify. If they are in a middle income group they are hit for everything, as usual, and they do not receive the benefits of the higher or lower paid. They do not get waivers or have the tax breaks of the wealthy and that is why they are dissenting.
People fear their local councils will be abolished, although I believe that fear is ungrounded. The councils know they have to work to a budget and want to do things in the community. This is a cross-party phenomenon. Maybe some individuals might not have voted for waste charges for political reasons or otherwise, but it is a fact that councils have adopted the waste charge everywhere. Therefore, I hate to see the perpetuation of the myth that councillors are not taking responsibility. They put themselves on the line all the time in respect of their decisions.
This amendment has afforded us an opportunity for debate, but we dealt with a Local Government Bill last year and had a considerable debate on it. I welcome the opportunity to look at such a Bill again within 12 months to tighten or relax various provisions.
We now have SPCs throughout the country, but we also have ADMs, the Leader programme and enterprise boards. I know the Minister's Department and others will examine this and shift the authority vested in many of those bodies to local authorities. Everything cannot happen over night. I was a member of a local authority when we had the local committees on agriculture and health. They vanished and we continued without them. In many cases Departments wanted to do something in local authority areas and had to set up ADMs, for example, because local authority members probably did not have time to attend any more meetings or do any more work at local authority level.
The Minister is saying, rightly, that when Oireachtas Members are no longer on local authorities, those authorities will have to work on a full-time basis discussing the problems and issues in their counties. We have an ADM in our county doing something about rural transport. The problem is that the Ministers have allocated money, but over half of this is spent on renting a premises and administration. Therefore, we will not benefit although a considerable sum of money has been made available.
This Bill is a move in the right direction because the section in question will give us a chance to think and allow the Minister to determine what issues must be addressed by a Bill similar to this one.
The Bill still fails to provide for a radical overhaul of how services are delivered. The Minister referred to councillors not being responsible. I would like him to check if this holds true in my local authority. I had to bring through the estimates with the support of my Fine Gael colleagues because the Fianna Fáil members abstained from voting for increased rates or charges. Only for us, our council would have folded. I acted responsibly while the members of the Minister's party did not.
Let us stick to the matter at hand.
The Minister should respect the principle of the amendment I have moved on behalf of the Fine Gael party.
I have listened carefully to the Senator. I do not intend to engage in a long discussion. I have been kind and reasonable in saying that I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to generate debate, but it represents a simplistic, puerile attempt. The references in the amendment do not mean anything. I have given credit where it is due, but let us not pretend that it would make any difference to accept it. These are substantive issues. As I sit on a Cabinet sub-committee which deals with this subject and because of other reasons, I get intensely annoyed with so many good bodies that are in receipt of huge sums of money and have no accountability to anybody, yet we are supposed to have a local government structure.
The roles of the county and city councillors, who are the final arbiters at local level, will not change to adhere to what Senator Bannon is suggesting if the amendment is accepted. However, everyone in the House agrees with the principle of moving in that direction. Fine Gael has published a policy document in the past 24 or 48 hours. It is only the starting point according to the Senator's leader and the party wants to flesh it out. I look forward to that and welcome it. It represents an important contribution and will certainly inform my thought process. I hope we will be dealing with these issues when we return with a substantive Bill.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
8.–Section 5 of the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 is hereby repealed in so far as the section relates to limitation of election expenses and accordingly sections 72 and 75 of the Electoral Act 1997 are hereby revived to that extent.".
It is anomalous that there are limits for expenditure for general elections and none for local elections. Although one has to disclose one's expenditure on local elections, there should be limits imposed. Otherwise, a political party could spend millions on local elections.
Local elections are also important. Candidates are elected through them who go on to represent their consituents in the Dáil. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on this amendment.
I understand what the Senator wishes to do. The issue pertains to the Electoral Act 1997. My views are well known on the issue in its widest sense and I intend to deal with the Act soon when I will return to the House. The regime that exists for local authority members is a fine one and it worked extremely well in the last local elections.
Dealing with funding for elections is not all about limits, it is about transparency. Questions of whether a person spends "X" or "Y" are artificial. The manner in which they received their funding should be the core question. The system should ask who funded whom, by what means and how much money was provided. Many of us ended up in a nonsensical position in the last general election, including the Cathaoirleach. The degree of high farce achieved could only have been dreamed about before. I intend to repeal rather than amend the Bill. It deserves to be binned, after which we will introduce a straightforward system which can be debated by the House when the legislation is before it.
The regime as it stands is not bad and it is not my intention to set limits. I will deal with the Electoral Act as a whole when I return to this House.
I am sorry to hear the Minister's remarks. I am worried at the idea of repealing the legislation on expenditure limits.
I am repealing the entire Act because of its consequences. All sides of the Houses accept that the last election was a nightmare.
Spending limits should be imposed. I do not want elections to be run here as they are in the United States of America where it is all about extensive funding from large corporations. These questions arise from problems we have had in the past. If no limits are in place, candidates will be competing with people who are spending huge amounts of money, which will beg the question of the source of finance and to whom one becomes accountable.
While I realise there are difficulties and that we need to examine the number of declarations we have to make, I recognise the positive effects of spending limits and I do not support getting rid of them. Without expenditure limits, there is no equal playing field and certain problems are invited. On a level playing pitch there is control over accountability and funding. I am sure many politicians were happy to know they would not be swamped by their opposition because everyone was limited in terms of what they could spend. Without limits everyone will spend a fortune as they do in the USA.
I did not intend to speak at this point as we are running late and I have no wish to delay the process, but I must disagree with Senator Tuffy. While I agree with the Senator on many things and admire her fine contributions, the Minister is correct to acknowledge that the legislation must be re-examined. I should be allowed to do what I want as long as my actions are transparent. I do not wish to be curbed by anybody who places limits on my spending. It should not be possible.
I can understand Senator Tuffy's reasoning but I agree with the Minister that there needs to be some reform of the existing legislation because it is very complicated and, in some respects, silly. It will make for bad democracy if allowed to continue. There should be some limits on amounts spent at elections by candidates because we do not want a system where wealthy individuals can expend vast sums to achieve electoral success. The views of every individual must be represented, whether they are local authority workers or owners of the largest companies. It is important that people should not be allowed to buy their way into power. Huge amounts have been invested in election campaigns in America. There are very good people and parties which have limited resources and we cannot allow one or two parties to become dominant. There is need for change but there should be limits on the amount which can be spent.
In case I have been misunderstood or misquoted, the important issue is transparency. I did not say there should not be any limit but that it is very much a secondary issue and it should be at a realistic level. It is clear, not only in this country but elsewhere, that money will not guarantee election. In the United States fortunes have been spent without success. Forbes has almost brought down his whole empire in trying to buy two presidential elections. Communication with the public is the important factor.
There are different circumstances. In my case there are five local newspapers. With the limit as it stands it is impossible. Which one do I choose in which to place one or two advertisements? It is farcical. Reasonable positions must be taken if we want limits. That will form part of the debate on the electoral legislation. The essential elements are transparency and accountability as to where the funding comes from, its form and how it is spent. These are the key issues for the public, who are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions. Artificial limits mean nothing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 6, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"
Section 14(1)(a) In paragraph (a), delete ‘, or'.
"
This amendment relates to an anomaly in the legislation. I refer to the question of allowing a person to run for and secure election to two local authorities. A casual vacancy therefore arises, undoing the mandate of the people. That is questionable. I may consider tabling an amendment to the principal Act on Report Stage.
A person cannot be a member of a city and town council, yet he or she can be a member of a county and town council. I do not see the reason that provision is in place because they are two forms and levels of local government. Why should somebody be allowed to be a county and town councillor but not a city councillor? The logistics are that the person must not be living in one of the areas but we are all aware of politicians who hold seats at various levels, including the Oireachtas, and do not necessarily live in the area they represent. The Minister is making a judgment. That is the only reasoning I can see behind this provision which is an anomaly in the legislation.
There is a lot to be said for leaving it up to the people to decide and letting them take the consequences of who they vote onto a particular body. There are plenty of other candidates who will make the point if someone is going to sit in two places. It is not something against which we should be legislating. I do not see the reasoning behind the proposal, apart from a judgment that a person would be living in an area and that a town and city council would be geographically removed from each other.
This was introduced in the Local Government Bill 2000 as a direct response to all the local authority associations who wanted it. It is included for a very good reason. Town councils are the smallest common denominator in the system. While they do not have many powers, equally they share the same electorate as the county council and there has been a long tradition of this connection. Many decisions made at the county council will affect the town council area. I thought about this in the context of the Bill but was persuaded by all political parties that the connectivity between the town and county council areas is very important. The arguments made on the 2000 Act still hold today.
The Senator seeks to connect a town and city council but there is no connection; the electorate is not the same. There is no overlapping of functions between them whereas the opposite pertains with regard to county and town councils. For instance, there is no connection between decisions made by Cork City Council and Skibbereen Town Council whereas clearly those made by Cork County Council have an effect on Skibbereen.
I have been persuaded by Members on both sides that there is an important shared electorate and decision-making process between the county and town council and that this should remain. I was persuaded of that view when reading what was said by Members about the 2000 Bill.
This is something about which I have thought long and hard. We enjoy privilege in this and the other House. Under the Local Government Bill will the Minister extend privilege to all public meetings of local authorities held in accordance with the law? This is a matter that needs to be addressed. When county development plans are being discussed, we make statements—
Acting Chairman
The Senator should speak to the amendment.
We have to be cautious and careful. I ask the Minister to consider extending privilege to elected members of local authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 7, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"
Section 217(1)(a) In paragraph (a), delete ‘may' and substitute ‘shall'.
(b) In paragraph (b), delete ‘12 months' and substitute ‘2 months'
".
I am trying to facilitate the Government with this amendment. It may be aware that there is a constitutional problem regarding the way the legislation is drafted whereby a Minister can abolish a local authority if it does not adopt its estimates. The amendment would provide that the Minister could if he or she wished hold new elections. The legislation seems to perceive the unelected commissioner as a kind of transitional arrangement, yet the wording of section 217 could allow a situation to arise where there would be local government elections followed by the taking of estimates. A council would be abolished if it did not adopt them. With the current wording a situation could arise where for four and a half years, there could be an unelected commissioner in place. That would be in direct contravention of Article 28A.2 inserted into the Constitution in 1999: "There shall be such directly elected local authorities". The legislation which allows an unelected commissioner to be in place for up to four and a half years is in direct contravention of this article and could be open to a constitutional challenge.
The legislation is almost worded to fit into the Constitution but does not quite go far enough. While it states the Minister "may" hold elections, it does not oblige him to do so. The 12 month gap allowed between elections is too long, My amendment would reduce it to two months. It would oblige the Minister to hold a new election if a council was abolished in order that there would be a directly elected local authority in place and that his actions would not face a constitutional challenge on those grounds. The Minister is dealing with waste charges because they may be thought to be unconstitutional. While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I believe this it is unconstitutional. I am being helpful to the Minister and the Government with this amendment.
I support Senator Tuffy's amendment. If a council does not strike a rate, the democratic process should be handed back to the people rather than appointing a commissioner. It is important that elections should be held at the earliest opportunity. If one takes on the responsibility of serving the people at local level, facilities and services must be provided. Power should never be handed to a commissioner, or at least only for a very limited period. There should be a by-election held to let the people decide who they want to represent them.
What happens if there is no change?
It needs to be made clear that section 217 and Part 21 of the principal Act continue the existing law which has been in place since 1941. These provisions enable the Minister to remove members from office where they fail to perform certain statutory duties. The Labour Party amendment seeks to revise the law in relation to the timing of a new election. For more than half a century, just four local authorities have been removed. The only one removed in the last 25 years was Naas UDC.
The 2001 Act continues the existing law and sets out the reasons for removal from office. I do not propose to go through them all in great detail. It was obvious in my role as Minister for the Environment and Local Government last year that the threat of removal concentrated the minds of people in regard to making decisions. It would be farcical to abolish a council in January, hold an election in February and have a local election in June.
It could happen again.
It would not be much of a deterrent. It would hardly be worth the effort and expense. The current system is fair, and people behave accordingly within the context of the system. Many Senators made the point that election brings responsibility. Unfortunately, people very often want to hear the good news but they do not want to stand up when difficult decisions are being made. I am not blaming anyone because it is human nature. The problem is that this could undermine decisions and delay the process.
The Green Party is seeking a judicial review on decisions relating to thermal treatment and incineration plants while the entire Green Party movement throughout Europe supports the plan. It supports it because it recognises that properly managed functioning systems at the high end of technology is what is needed, instead of destroying the environment. We know that people are currently burning their rubbish in the garden and all over farms. I have stated publicly – no one has refuted it – that if the six incinerators for municipal waste were in place and functioning tomorrow, they would deliver less than 2% of total dioxins in the atmosphere on an annual basis. The fact is that bonfire night emits 100 times more dioxins into the atmosphere than six incinerators combined in 12 months. We must try to get the public to understand what we are talking about and eliminate the hogwash, nonsense and misleading information. I do not propose to change something that is well tested and working extremely well.
I disagree with the Minister's point that the system has been tested. The 1999 referendum fundamentally changed things and the system has not been tested since. The Minister said it will have the effect of ensuring councils adopt their estimates. The threat of an election would also concentrate minds. I do not think people would relish an election every few months. The Dáil cannot be abolished. If there was fundamental disagreement in the Dáil there would be an election. If that applies to the Dáil, why does it not apply to local government?
There is an example of where that did not happen. The Dáil was reconstituted and formed another Government without going back to the people. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that.
It was the choice of the Dáil. Local authorities do not have to go back to the people; they can adopt their estimates. My proposal would focus their minds and ensure they would get their act together. The threat that national Government can abolish local authorities indicates that local government is the lesser of the two. It is dictating to local government.
That is part of the reform question in the next Bill.
The most important thing is that section 28(a) does not provide for that. I do not know if that was the intention of the Administration at the time. It tabled a significant amendment on local government. Many challenges the Minister has not foreseen will arise. It is difficult to know what the outcome of court proceedings might be but I am sure someone will successfully challenge the decision. The purpose of my amendment is to improve the legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 11 March 2003.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.
The Seanad adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 2003.