I wish to point out a drafting error in amendment No. 14 - in the second line of subsection (1) of the amendment the word "substitute" should read "substitution". It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purposes of debate: Nos. 14 and 19 and Nos. 16 and 17. All other amendments, if in order, will be discussed individually.
Local Government Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (5), line 7, after "under" to insert "subsection (3) of this section, section 11,".
Subsection (3) is the part of this section with which I am most concerned. The section deals with regulations, orders and directions and for the last 17 years the way orders are provided for in legislation has been a hobby horse of mine. Section 2(5) provides that most orders made under the Act will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and come into effect unless a resolution annulling the regulations or orders has been passed by either House within 21 sitting days. I cannot recall an occasion in the past 17 years when such an order made was debated. I recall at least two occasions when I asked for such an order to be debated and the Government of the day prevented debate by not making Government time available. I do not think Private Members' time is appropriate.
I am always suspicious of this procedure being used to make orders. I know there is a great range of regulations and orders to which this procedure is appropriate. However, we must be vigilant to ensure the procedure is not over used. There is another procedure under which orders can be proposed, brought to the Houses of the Oireachtas and cannot come into effect until resolutions approving them have been made. That is the procedure the Minister has in mind when he specifies in subsection (5) that orders under section 8(8) or section 14(3) should be taken according to the "active" procedure. Given the importance of the matters provided for in section 2(3) and in provisions that would be made under section 11 with the amendment I propose, those orders should require an affirmative vote of the Houses of the Oireachtas rather than the procedure set out.
I was taken aback to find that section 2 gives the Minister an unusually wide power to make orders and regulations. My astonishment was increased when I examined the 1926 Act. It does not provide a power for the Minister to make orders on any of these matters. The times were different then and I do not criticise our predecessors who passed the 1926 Act. Section 2 of the Bill gives the Minister wide powers to make
. . . regulations prescribing any matter or thing referred to in the Act as prescribed or to be prescribed or for the purpose of enabling any provision of this Act to have full effect.
That gives the Minister a free hand in bringing the Act into effect.
My amendment seeks to bring two further matters into the ambit of the exception provided for in subsection (5) - first, the definition of posts that would be filled without recourse to the local appointments committee procedure and, second, the provision made in subsection (3) - to take those matters out of the wide power to make orders in the passive form and to require such orders to be made in the active form.
I propose this amendment because it is good parliamentary practice to examine the kinds of orders made. We should not always accept that the passive method should apply. We should select the four areas, subject to my amendment on section 11, and the Oireachtas should consciously make a decision on them rather than let them pass by effluxion of time.
Our perspective on this issue changes as we move across the Government-Opposition divide. I have often heard Deputies argue trenchantly that all regulations and statutory instruments which follow enabling legislation should require an affirmation from the Dáil. That is, by and large, good in principle. Deputy Dukes is an exception to this rule. His view has always been clear on this matter and it is one we should seek to support.
Inconveniences will always arise because people will say regulations may need to be made in circumstances where it may not be possible to table them in the Dáil - for example, it may be adjourned. When I was Minister I discovered that a huge volume of law making is devolved to the Minister alone. That generally undermines the scrutiny function of the Oireachtas.
We will shortly discuss the amendment to section 11. It is an issue I have not raised yet and do no propose to do so now. However, I hold strong views on the good functioning to date of the Local Appointments Commission. I read the Minister's letter but I am unclear why there is a compelling reason to diminish its functioning in such a drastic way. The general principles of the amendment in the name of Deputy Dukes have my strong approval although I am fearful the Minister will recite cases where similar clauses were inserted in legislation introduced by me.
Standing Orders empower me only to speak on this Stage. I cannot move motions or amendments. If I could I would move amendments to section 2(3), which gives the Minister an extraordinary power to set aside any provision of the Act.
I invite the Minister to make an exception of the part of the legislation dealing with the local government elections for 1999 because under the terms of the subsection he could set aside the mandate to hold them. Theoretically, he could set them aside coming up to the summer recess in 1999 and, while I would have to refer to the Oireachtas as soon as possible, he would not be amenable to it until possibly late in the following October. To make clear his intention that there will be no further delay to the holding of local elections he should, as a matter of goodwill, deliberately exclude that provision in the Bill from section 2(3).
Deputies Dukes and Howlin made the point that our perspective of these matter changes depending on which side of the House we sit. I recall a detailed discussion with Deputy Howlin on previous legislation in this area when he cited authority and legal advice for the measures he introduced. I carefully studied them in the context of this Bill and I have again bowed to weighty legal opinion. I was unable to find examples from the legislation introduced by Deputy Dukes.
Section 2(5) provides that all the regulations or orders under the Bill, with only two exceptions, must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made. They will be annulled if an appropriate resolution is passed within 21 days. The two exceptions are orders under section 8(8), which relates to the setting of dates for motor taxation increases - Deputies will see the need for this - and orders under section 14(3), which are commencement orders to bring the Bill into operation. The provision of a commencement date for an Act already passed by the Oireachtas is a standard practice in preparing legislation. It is not subject to annulment at a later stage.
The amendment in the name of Deputy Dukes would remove from the scope of section 2(5) regulations that are to be made under two other sections - those made under section 2(3), which empowers the Minister to act to remove difficulties in bringing the Act into operation, and section 11. However, this section does not refer to the making of orders or regulations. The Deputy referred to the 1926 Act. I presume he means section 2 of that Act under which the Minister may, with the concurrence of the Local Appointments Commission, specify which posts are to be filled by the commission.
The amendment as drafted would mean the regulations under section 2(3) would not have to be laid before the Oireachtas. However, this is an important provision and I agree with thrust of the Deputy's argument that the regulations should be brought before the House to be confirmed or annulled. While I am aware of the legal meaning of the amendment I am not sure if that is the Deputy's intention. Does he want a positive resolution to be required to give effect to such regulations under section 2(3)? Does he want to have decisions agreed between the Minister and the LAC with regard to the post to be filled by the LAC to be brought to the Oireachtas?
I accept Deputies may have concerns regarding the provision for the removal of difficulty; I raised similar concerns during discussion of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1997. This provision is designed for the removal of the difficulty; it does not give a Minister power to change a Bill passed by the Oireachtas. It applies where, in implementing what was the will of the Oireachtas, a difficulty arises. In such circumstances it allows the Minister to remove the difficulty to enable the legislation work as intended. There is no evidence that previous Ministers abused this provision.
Deputy Higgins said the section 2(3) provision would allow the Minister to postpone further local elections. It does not give him that power. It can only be used to remove difficulties and bring any provision of the Act into operation. It will not prevent any section being brought into operation. It relates to removal of difficulty. The Deputy's fears are not justified and I cannot accept the amendment.
In relation to the reference in the amendment to section 11, I understand this cannot be dealt with now because we are discussing an amendment to section 2. The Minister detected my intention and pointed out that the form of the amendment is defective. My intention was not to remove aspects completely from scrutiny. I overlooked the fact that there is a third way in which orders can be made.
The first is where an Act allows a Minister to make orders without any further discussion. This would be the effect of the amendment as it stands. The second form of order is referred to in subsection (5) while the third form of order requires the active assent of the Houses of the Oireachtas. My proposal is that orders made under section 2(3), section 8(8), section 14(3) and section 11, if it is modified, would require an affirmative resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas. To make this clear, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Will the Minister reconsider the position in relation to subsection (3) and section 11? One of the reasons for the amendment to section 11 arises from points made in the Minister's letter of 15 May to which Deputy Howlin referred. The Minister said in relation to the procedure which led him to propose section 11 that, on enactment of the Bill, an order will be made which will declare the level at which the LAC will fill posts directly. He said it was his intention to have the LAC continue to fill all senior technical and administrative posts in the local authority service.
The letter stated only that an order will be made. The Minister did not specify the type of order. There is nothing in the Bill, with the exception of section 2(3), which makes any specification about such an order. There are no other provisions for an order of this nature. Section 2 of the 1926 Act, or any other section, does not make any provision for orders in relation to these matters. As it stands, there is no provision for orders.
I assume the Minister has in mind that he will make an order in the same way as orders under section 2(3) will be made, that is, a simple power in the Act for him to make an order without any further discussion. However, this is not appropriate because the matters which will be specified relate to important posts in local authorities and the LAC is in place. I understand the Minister's point that there has never been any publicised row between a Minister for the Environment and the Local Appointments Commission. However, I do not know what subterranean tensions may have existed between the Minister and the LAC. I suspect there have been more than a few from time to time. There has not been any publicised row but one cannot be sure that will continue to be the case.
I will withdraw the amendment and reintroduce it on Report Stage. However, I ask the Minister to consider the position in relation to the type of order he intends to make in line with the intentions he expressed in his letter of 15 May. Will he comment on the significance of the fact that there is no provision in the 1926 Act for any orders and, therefore, it appears any such order will come under section 2(3) of the Bill?
I apologise to Deputy Dukes. I now understand the point of his amendment. The confusion was caused by the letter he received and the use of the word "order". The Deputy is correct that there is no provision in the 1926 Act for an order in this respect and it will not apply under section 11 of the Bill. The word "determination" should have been used. Section 2(2) of the 1926 Act makes it clear that every question or dispute as to whether any particular office or employment is or is not an office to which the Act applies shall be decided by the Minister after consultation with the commissioner and such decisions shall be final and conclusive. Therefore, no order is made. A determination is made following consultation between the Minister and the Local Appointments Commission. The Deputy is correct and I apologise for the confusion.
The intention is to confirm that the LAC will continue to have responsibility for filling all the major professional posts. Some of the lesser posts will be removed from consideration by the Local Appointments Commission. This will allow them to be filled quickly. The current position where vacancies exist for considerable periods of time is not good for local government. People are in temporary and acting positions for long periods. This aspect will be dealt with under section 11. I again apologise to Deputy Dukes for the use of the word "order" in the letter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 2 is out of order.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
It is vital that funding for local government is at arm's length from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The idea behind a legislatively based and ringfenced fund was that it could not be subject to claw back in the future when resources were scarce or there were other pressures on the economy. In the past all Governments have been guilty of treating local government as a soft target. The consequences of this are an under-developed and under-resourced system. Even the range of skills available to local government is lacking in depth. Few senior administrators deal with complicated programmes of work. If this work was carried out at central Government level, such administrators would have a much broader range of expertise available to them to carry out their functions. A town clerk may be responsible for urban renewal in addition to myriad other matters. We need to put in place resources and mechanisms which ensure that these resources cannot be clawed back.
One of the objectives of the equalisation fund was to ensure that everybody would get a fair deal and that an equalisation fund committee would be run by local authorities at arm's length from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and more especially from the Minister for Finance. The Minister's decision to centralise the allocation of money, possibly with he assistance of an advisory committee, is a far cry from establishing a mechanism at arm's length. I have a feeling the Minister would not disagree with the principle I am outlining. Will he give me some reassurance in regard to the independence of the funding which will be available? It may well be that a particular source of funding has been ring fenced but there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Minister may end up squeezing out other sources of funding to local authorities and the net effect will be that they will be disadvantaged. This may be a step backwards from the position which was enacted last year.
I would like to make a passing reference to an amendment which has been ruled out of order. When the Minister is replying, will he confirm that, to the extent that provision is made in the Bill for an equalisation mechanism, the equalisation concern will be part of the matters covered by the operation of section 6? With respect to my colleague, Deputy McCormack, the Minister is aware that I am not hugely impressed by the procedure he has undertaken in this regard. Section 6 is the only one which refers to payments from the fund. I would be interested to see if any provision is made for the operation of equalisation concerns in section 6.
Section 6(1) covers the disbursements from the fund and exactly mirrors the provisions of the 1997 Act. Deputy Howlin and his local government colleagues throughout the country will be aware that I have acknowledged his major achievement in the 1997 Act in having motor tax revenue specifically earmarked for local government. That may seem a modest advance but, having attempted to secure the earmarking of further money myself, I know exactly what Deputy Howlin was up against.
I do not want to get into a political debate on the limitations, of which there were many, of the 1997 Act. However, I have acknowledged that it was a step forward born out of the previous Minister's and Government's commitment to local government. The Act did not constitute an ideal improvement in local government finances any more than the current Bill does. However, the current Bill is an advance on what existed previously and further advances can hopefully be made in the future. I do not want to rehash the arguments which have been made about towing local government behind the family motor car.
We should not get too hung up on how the fund is distributed in the initial stages. It is more important that there is more money in the fund and that we try to distribute it in an objective manner, one which will meet objective criteria. I do not believe we will necessarily get matters right on the first occasion but the Bill will serve as a basis which can be improved upon over a period. When we are satisfied with the system which is in place it will not matter whether the Minister or an equalisation council administers the fund.
It would constitute an abdication of political responsibility if we did not try to get the system right before handing it over to a so-called independent body. If one reads through the various provisions contained in the 1997 Act which, to a certain extent, are repeated in this one, one will see that the Minister will retain a huge say in the matter. I would like to put in place the objective system, use the equalisation council for an interim period and, having seen it in operation, establish a totally separate independent body. I do not think we should run before we can walk on this issue. It will be at least four to five years before the objective needs and resources model can be put in place after which time a council can be established. That is my approach to the matter.
I agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said and I acknowledge the sincerity of his comments in regard to the 1997 Act. The difficulty is that, under the existing arrangement and prior to the enactment of this legislation, we have ringfenced motor taxation for the general use of local authorities. Under this proposal, the proceeds of motor tax will be primarily devoted to the funding of non-national roads - £323 million of the £593 million will be earmarked for the improvement of non-national roads and will be allocated disproportionately to those counties which have the greatest need. This is not merited in all cases as some counties spent precious little of their own money in the past while others did their best to maintain their roads in scarce times. They will be primarily advantaged in a time of freer money and those who acted more responsibly in trying to maintain the roads will be disadvantaged because the bulk of the revenue from motor tax, £323 million, will be spent on roads. The upgrading of non national roads which is vital should be separate from this core funding. The needs analysis was carried out, a multi-annual programme is in place and the Minister is doing his best to provide as much money as possible to bring the non-national road system into a state of proper repair. That should be separate from the core funding mechanism.
Under the system that was in place, 80 per cent of roads money stayed in the county where it was collected and there was a natural attractiveness to that for local authorities because it was money they collected and could keep. The remaining 20 per cent went into an equalisation fund to ensure counties which had a poor motor base would not be disadvantaged. That seemed fair and it was a pool of money they could use for normal council purposes. Now that is to be spent on roads and the money for the core funding of the council will only be £270 million next year -the local government fund contribution. That is a major step backwards.
If one element of the Bill is taken to make a point, as the Deputy just did, many other related aspects of the Bill are missed. The Deputy will be aware that the reference to 80 per cent of motor tax revenue is only 65 per cent in actual terms when commercial vehicles, etc., are taken into account also.
The remainder of the equalisation fund went back to the counties and was available for general council purposes.
Exactly, and the problem with that was it would not stop Governments from squeezing local authorities even further. When hard times come they would tell them they would get so much from motor tax revenue but remaining funds would be dispersed elsewhere.
The Bill is an improvement in ringfencing finance and it specifically provides that if any extra functions are placed on local authorities, then the money must be provided for them. The Deputy has experience, as a local authority and Government member, of extra impositions placed on local authorities without any money being provided. He should not lose sight of the fact that ringfencing also includes this provision in law.
The £270 million fund will be index linked similar to the rate support grant and will ensure buoyancy to a certain extent. The current arrangement means there is more money in the fund and the bulk of motor tax revenue funds non-national roads. As a result of work begun by the Deputy and continued by me, I hope there will not be a future need for such huge amounts of money for these roads. The completion date for the non-national road programme is 2005 and we are well on target. If that plan works, the same amount of money will not be needed for them afterwards.
I take the Deputy's point regarding some local authorities which did not look after their roads. They could be penalised but at this stage that would not serve any useful purpose. I know of one local authority where the graph of funding from the Department went in one direction while the graph of its resources went the opposite way. Local election results show which county that was. However, that is in the past and the Deputy set a non-national roads programme in train and we are basing roads funding on existing needs and, I hope, by 2005 we will reach the end of the programme. That does not mean we will not need significant funding for roads, but we may not need as much and that will be ringfenced in the local government fund rather than going back into the maw of the Exchequer as was previously the case.
I support Deputy Howlin's argument but accept much of the Minister's reply. One problem I have with ringfencing motor tax revenue for spending on roads is that it takes away discretion from local authorities. I am sure no local authority would have a difficulty spending money on non-national roads but there is a huge diversity among them and their needs. For instance, a rural local authority with many non-national roads would be pleased with this system but an urban one which has as many miles of footpaths might prefer to spend the money on them or in one year decide to introduce a cycling system for the entire county. This lack of discretion, even if it is only on a once off basis, is undesirable.
I accept the Deputy's point but the existing system has a similar lack of discretion. That is the problem and I agree wholeheartedly with her that local authorities need more discretion. They must be given more money to begin with which is what we are trying to do and having done that the question of discretion comes into the equation. Local authorities can be given all the discretion one wishes but if they are not given money or do not have the capacity to raise money themselves, then there are difficulties. I always talk about extra funding and value for money almost in the one breath and say this responsibility would be placed on local authorities when they get extra money. We will be in a position with value for money and performance indicators in place to tell the local authorities that since they do their business well and obviously get the maximum value for every pound they receive, we will give them more by way of block grant and less by way of specific ear-tagged grants than heretofore to allow them to make decisions on recycling, roads, footpaths, lighting, traffic management, etc. That is the direction in which we are going, although never quickly enough. It is my intention that this is the way we would use some of this funding; local authorities which spend their money wisely would have more discretion over how it is spent. It is my intention that that should happen to a greater extent over the next number of years.
On a point of clarification, the Minister stated that motor tax would go mainly towards non-national roads and that any other functions which would be thereupon placed on the local authorities in the years ahead would have to be provided also. Over the years there has been a great deal of legislation - such as the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, the Landlord Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1994 - which local authorities have not been able to enforce because they do not have funds. This is something of which we should be conscious. If we are passing legislation we must back it up, and not just with ad hoc grants to local authorities to put one man in a uniform so that, all of a sudden, the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, is in force. Are there provisions in this Bill whereby in future any extra burdens placed on local authorities would have to be financed by the central Exchequer as opposed to the motor tax fund about which we are talking at present?
The short answer is yes. There is a specific section in this Bill which deals with the provision of £270 million per annum for the local government fund - section 4(1) and (2). We are also providing in section 4(5) that the figure mentioned in the proviso to subsection (3) is linked to the CPI. We are also stating in section 4(4) that the matters which must be taken into account will include any changes in the functions of local authorities, changes in the expenses in carrying out the functions of a local authority which are likely to arise in the current year or any changes which have taken place in the previous year which need to be financed.
We are taking into account inflation. Therefore, the £270 million on 1 January 1999 is the base figure. If, on 1 January 2000, the rate of inflation has been 3 per cent in the previous year, the figure is £270 million plus 3 per cent. We are taking into account the cost base of local authorities. One of the difficulties local authorities have always experienced, of which members will be aware, is going to an estimates meeting thinking one will get 3 or 4 per cent more in line with inflation only to discover from the manager that wages increased by 8 per cent and there was less money available in real terms than in the previous year. That must be built-in.
The third item we mentioned was the new functions which might be imposed by Government. In that connection, to give the Deputy one example, with the recent announcement on the preservation of the architectural heritage which will impose obligations on local authorities with regard to their development plans and the putting in place of conservation officers, provision has been built-in to the Government decision and the figure of £270 million will be £270.3 million on 1 January 1999. It is immensely important that these provisions are in the Bill. That is why I say it is ringfenced and meets the obligations which will be imposed on us.
I welcome these important provisions. For the first time there is a statutory requirement for additional functionality to be funded also because it is all too easy to state that local authorities carry this can as well as everything else.
I want to return to the net point which is at the core of the changes the Minister is proposing. I am not satisfied he has addressed them directly. The biggest component of the new local government fund is motor tax. The Minister has determined that that should be spent for the most part on non-national roads. The difference, for example, on 1 January 1999 between the situation which will be in effect if this Bill is enacted and that which would be in effect otherwise is clear. Under Minister Dempsey's proposal £323 million will be spent on non-national roads and £270 million will be available for other local discretionary funding. Under the arrangements which were in place, that £323 million would be available to the local authorities to use at their discretion and a sum - we can only guestimate, it would be £200 million plus anyway - would be available for the non-national roads programme to be spent specifically on non-national roads. The watering down of the discretionary component is the flaw in the Bill. That is something which has not been addressed.
The net point is that the bulk of the money under the fund is to be spent on non-national roads. Therefore, it is a capital programme which is not available in a discretionary way to local authorities. It is going disproportionately to those local authorities with the greatest non-national road need. That is not what is required. Local authorities should have as much discretion as possible rather than simply state that some who did not do their best with scarce resources will gain disproportionately whereas those who carried the can as best they could will be disadvantaged in this. I am not suggesting, as the Minister has put it to me, that some should be disadvantaged because they have a bad non-national roads system, but he is going to disadvantage those who have made the effort by saying that the bulk of the money now must be spent on non-national roads and diminish that proportion which is discretionary to them. That will be the net result from this Bill.
We can use figures all we like. It is often said that politicians use statistics much as a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination. The premise on which Deputy Howlin bases his argument is that the bulk of motor tax is being spent on non-national roads, but he does not know the proportion that will be spent on non-national roads next year.
Would the Minister like to tell us or is it a secret?
It is a secret so far because we must work this out. Using the £323 million figure and stating that all or most of that will be spent on non-national roads is not accurate for a start. The fact remains that the amount in the 1997 Estimates, between the road grants and the motor tax, was £454 million.
What are the non-national road grant figures for this year?
That grant is £203 million.
What is the estimated motor tax income?
That is £300 million.
Then we are talking about £503 million as opposed to £583 million.
I am taking off £9 million to be fair to everybody.
That is only a difference of £80 million.
A mere £80 million.
An increase would be expected for next year.
The Deputy knows from his own time in office that there is no way that £50 million would be allocated.
I got £173 million from zero in two years for non-national roads.
Not from zero.
Yes.
We are talking about real money. There is £125 million on the 1997 figures. Taking increases into account, there is an increase of approximately £80 million between 1998 and 1999.
The 1998 figure rather than the 1997 figure should be used.
I always like to compare myself to the person who went before me.
If the Minister compared himself to Charlie Haughey there would be a huge gap.
I would not go back that far. On the Deputy's general point, the 1997 Act he introduced had a number of shortfalls I am addressing. The Deputy is accusing me of doing what I accused him of in that Act, which is juggling the funding sources. When this Bill is passed it will establish a substantial ringfenced fund for local government which we have discussed in detail. It will provide £125 million more than the 1997 figure, £80 million more than the 1998 figure and will be protected and buoyant. It will allow local authorities greater discretion. We have heard much about the discretion that would have been allowed to those authorities under the other system, but the local variation power involved in the previous Act was purely for show. The total variation would allow no real discretion under the previous system. Approximately £10 per year on an average car, approximately £18 million in total, would have been provided under buoyancy. That is less than 0.8 per cent of total local government expenditure. Allowing for inflation, £80 million is considerably more than that.
It is not even £80 million because that figure assumes that motor tax will not go up. The Minister is already budgeting an increase of £23 million in motor tax into the 1999 figures.
The Deputy made the point on another occasion that no local authority would increase this. I was accused of hitting the hard pressed motorist with a 6 per cent increase the previous Government had not imposed. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
I am quoting the figures. We will deal with the motor tax increase later. Whether it is compulsory or optional can be discussed. The Minister is talking about a net figure of £80 million. However, that assumes there is no increase in motor tax. He is in fact assuming there will be a £23 million in motor tax because the estimated motor tax income for this year is £300 million and £323 million next year. If one takes that £23 million from the £80 million the increase is even smaller.
That is because I had the courage to put those two 3 per cent increases into the Bill. There is also inbuilt buoyancy in the system.
There would be buoyancy anyway.
With a good Government it will be more buoyant. We would have been able to vary motor tax in the one third of local authorities which have motor tax offices.
It was agreed that that would be devolved to them all.
It was agreed through a very convoluted mechanism, which was not workable.
That should not put one off doing the right thing.
It is not complexity.
We could be here for the afternoon if we continue to discuss budgetary measures.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The funding of local government has been one of the more shameful chapters in Irish politics since 1983, when the link was broken between the rate support grant and what domestic rates would have secured for local authorities. The situation has gone rapidly downhill since then. I joined Dublin County Council in the early 1990s and was astounded by an exercise that the council's financial managers did on a yearly basis. They compared the amount of funding they had with what they would have if the rate support grant had been kept up. The difference was a staggering £50 million per annum. There were thousands of homes being built and funding was not keeping up. Staff were being let go while the population was expanding. Many of the problems in the suburbs thrown up for working class people on green field sites stem from that lack of funding.
The Minister should outline briefly what the £270 million in the funds mean in comparative terms. Where does the figure come from? Does it involve extra levels of funding for each local authority? Will it mean each local authority will have extra money in real terms for the development of services heretofore neglected? Has the Minister quantified this? Local authorities vary widely, but what will this provision mean in real terms? When Deputy Howlin was Minister he began the process of making an overall fund available to local authorities which was not dependent on the hated water tax. I appeal to the Minister to talk to county managers and to call off the bailiffs. Sheriffs are calling to the doors of decent taxpayers looking for a few hundred pounds in water tax arrears is shameful in view of what banks have been getting away with.
The Minister has set £270 million aside and has outlined how motor taxation relates to non-national roads. In view of the appalling local authority housing crisis, will the Minister make a similar arrangement for an emergency housing fund? As there are 27,000 individuals suffering on housing lists such a provision is desperately needed. There are 1,500 families on Fingal's housing list, and last year 85 new homes were provided. There are 2,000 families on the south Dublin list and only 100 new homes were provided. If that trend continues, the distress of low and even middle income families on those lists will continue. What are the prospects of the Minister using this Bill to set down a three year programme to provide ringfenced funding to wipe out the local authority housing lists? That measure is desperately needed. We have had discussions on the Bacon report on housing but everyone knows that the Minister for Finance's new provisions will not impact on those on the housing list. I appeal to the Minister to introduce a proposal along the lines I am suggesting.
We have had some discussion on the extra money that will be provided for local government on foot of the changes in the Bill. If one uses the 1997 figure it is £125 million and it is over £80 million if one uses the 1998 figure. That should mean extra money for each local authority. However, as I have stated on a number of occasions, the distribution of that extra money will be done on the basis of the needs and resources study on a scientific basis. In that way, the needs of the local authority and the resources will be taken into account so funds will be distributed accordingly. All Members must realise that there is no bottomless pit of money; there is no clicking of fingers to provide huge amounts of money for everything that needs to be done. I have £2.2 billion planned for water and sewerage schemes, £50 million planned for swimming pools and a similar amount for libraries. Approximately £350 million is needed annually for national roads which is separate from non-national roads. There is no way that instant solutions can be put in place. Clearing the housing list in three years would cost approximately £1.6 billion at current levels, and that money is not around for that or other programmes.
In relation to local government funding, I acknowledge the Deputy's point regarding the break between the rate support grant and the needs of the local authorities. The mistake made by all parties was interfering with what was done with existing rates, though Deputy Higgins will not agree because he feels local people should not pay anything towards the cost of local services. There was then a local basis that paid for local government. I would be the first to accept that even if the rate system stayed in place, the levels needed to meet costs would not have been met. However, it was a base for local government financing and we do not have it any more.
Regarding water tax, Deputy Higgins and I have discussed this before and I am not inclined in any way to interfere with the local authorities' collection of legally outstanding debts for water charges. The authorities have a legal obligation to try and recover that money.
On a point of clarification, the Minister mentioned £270 million as being £125 million extra on 1997. Does that mean that in 1999 there will be £125 million extra in comparison with 1997?
Yes.
It does not. We have had this discussion.
The actual figure is £21 million.
I would be delighted to give way to Deputy Dukes to come up with that.
I calculated it from the Minister's figures.
He produced this figure from the sky before.
I got it from the Minister's press release.
Let me have the calculations. The Deputy has mine but I do not have his.
They are the Minister's figures.
They are not. Road grants in 1997 were £172.8 million as estimated originally and motor tax was £281.2 million, amounting to a total of £454 million. The local government fund, as of 1 January 1999, will be £323 million motor tax plus £270 million, minus £9.5 million due to a change in the internal housing capital; that leaves a net figure of £583.5 million. That is the difference between 1997 and 1999.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: That section 5 stand part of the Bill.
I disagree with the Minister and I oppose the section.
Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order.
I will not travel the same ground as we have been afforded scope to deal with this matter in previous sections. I oppose the section.
It should be noted that although the Minister claims the system he is putting in place gives extra autonomy to local authorities, section 6(2) provides that the Minister may require the local authorities concerned to apply amounts of money in a specified manner, and that the local authority or local authorities shall comply with such a requirement. So much for autonomy. What the Minister is saying about this Bill giving extra autonomy to local authorities is without foundation, as is clear from this subsection.
Can the Minister tell us more about the intention of subsection (3)? It is one of the strangest means of giving power to the Minister I have seen. I take it this is part of the operation to come out of the pilot study being done in the Galway local authorities but it seems strange that the Minister may pay himself or herself expenses out of this fund to promote or secure the making of improvements in the quality of service provided by local authorities or to encourage local authorities to perform their functions in a more economical, efficient and effective manner.
While parliamentary draftsmen must frame matters legally, they do so in a way that is not clear to the vulgar populace, amongst which I number myself. I take it this means that if the pilot study shows ways of making local authorities more efficient, the Minister can bribe himself or herself to bribe the local authorities to adopt these procedures. Am I right in concluding that is what is involved? Here the Minister is directing moneys to be paid into a fund and then being empowered to pay moneys out of that fund to get local authorities to do certain things. Can the Minister explain this provision?
Deputy Dukes should cast his mind back to his time in Government, when the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1997, went to Cabinet. His colleague Deputy Howlin would have explained this in great detail, because this is an exact replica of what was in that Bill.
The Minister should not worry about tax. I barely got my feet under the table that day.
The purpose of this section is to provide that the Minister can pay moneys out of the fund representing costs incurred by the Minister in implementing various steps to promote or secure the making of improvements in the quality of services provided by local authorities. It is also to encourage local authorities to perform their services in a more economical, efficient and effective manner. In effect, this subsection empowers the Minister to pay moneys out of the fund to himself or herself or the Department in respect of expenditure incurred by the Minister or the Department. The type of expenditure involved relates to a value for money study and the audit section of the Department, which we want to strengthen. It is permissible under this legislation, as it was under the previous legislation, for that to be funded from the local government fund, because the outcome of that study will be of direct benefit to local government.
Other matters, such as the provision of one stop shops and the quality award scheme initiated by the previous Minister, will be eligible for financing under this provision, as well as the new accounting system for local authorities. The Minister will be empowered to say these are for the betterment of local government so they can be paid for out of this fund.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, lines 41 to 45, to delete subsection (2).
I propose deleting this subsection because it gives the Minister power to specify what the local authorities must do. It is different from subsection (3), which empowers the Minister to pay moneys to local authorities. Subsection (2) empowers the Minister to require local authorities to apply amounts paid out from the fund in a specified manner. The Minister purports to give the local authorities more power in this Bill and this subsection is accordingly inappropriate. Therefore I propose its deletion.
I understand the Deputy's point, but the idea behind this is that the local government fund will be made up of motor tax plus the Exchequer contribution. This section gives the Minister the power to decide the amount to be used for the non-national road network and the amount to be spent on other general purposes of a local authority. It is not designed to give the Minister power to tell a county council that it is going to spend so much on roads and so much on every area of spending. It is meant to specify the total amounts from the local government fund which will be spent on roads and general purposes.
I thank the Minister for his explanation. However, he has stated that my understanding is correct. He is empowered on the payment of money out of this local government fund to say to Kildare County Council: "I am making you this payment out of the fund which you must use for non-national roads." The way the provision is drawn up allows the Minister to specify on what an amount of money paid to any local authority out of this fund must be spent. This a Bill which the Minister says will be give more autonomy to local authorities but he is reducing that autonomy. He is saying: "I will give you money out of this fund as long as you spend it on certain specified things." This Bill is a fraud. If it is to have anything to do with local authority autonomy this provision robs it of any element of autonomy. That is why I propose the deletion of this subsection. I can see that the Minister is not even going to think about this between now and Report Stage. I would like the amendment to be put.
The Deputy is right. As a former Minister for Finance, or if he was ever to return to that role, he would be horrified if any Department allowed money to be dished out to any subsidiary organisation or local authority without some specification as to how it would be spent.
I would indeed and the Minister can be sure that I would not allow another colleague to come to the Cabinet table and say we are going to spend £400 million plus on a particular project without knowing what the plus is.
Because motor tax is going into this fund it is only right that the Minister should have the right to say that £X of the motor tax fund will be used for non-national roads.
Local authorities are more controlled now than they will be under this legislation in relation to funding. They have to wait until March or April every year for the Department to tell them how much they are going to get for spending on roads but, under this legislation, they will be notified much earlier and will be allowed build it into their financial calculations and estimates for the year.
It is fine for the Minister to say that. However, last November after he announced the provision for non-national roads for this year, I asked him if he could tell the local authorities how much they were going to get. Is he now telling me that it takes from November to March to do the sums and that we have to wait for the outcome of the study in the Galway local authorities for any improvement in that system? Things are even worse than I thought.
One of the benefits of this system is that when it is in place I will be in a position to give each local authority a fairly good indication very early, before they start their estimates, how much they will have next year. Even with the good work done by my two predecessors, it was always after the estimates were completed that road, housing and other grants came. Local authorities were working blind. To a lesser extent I recognise that Deputy Howlin's system helped to bring the date forward. However, I hope that local authorities will not only be able to plan and have a good idea of how much they will have before their estimates this year but would be able to start the concept of multi-annual budgeting and make plans over a two or three year period.
The fact that a proportion of the motor taxation fund is to be spent on non-national roads means that they will not have that certainty. They will not know until the Minister determines the proportion and how it is to be allocated. Will he be doing that before the annual estimates process? In terms of this amendment and the subsection in section 6, if the Minister simply wants the power to channel the expenditure from the fund into non-national roads, could he not make specific provision for that rather than the very broad powers that he has admitted exist in this section which mean that he directs the bulk of funding in specific terms to local authorities? Whether he is going to do that, he will have the power to do so. I do not think that is right.
The Minister talked about subservient bodies like the local authorities. He may think again about this comment when he reads the "blacks". The whole idea is that local authorities are not subservient - they are a separate tier of Government. They have been regarded as subservient to central government for too long but they must have their own autonomy and functionality which is separate and independent of central Government. For a long time we have failed to give them that independence. Would the Minister consider a more restrictive power by Report Stage?
If the Deputy checks the "blacks" I hope he will find that I mentioned subservient bodies to the Department and local authorities. If I am wrong I will correct that. I did not say——
That was a quick recovery.
It is my intention to inform local authorities of their estimates in advance. In so far as is possible I will tell them what they will be getting from the local government fund. As Deputy Dukes stated, and as I have acknowledged, hopefully the needs and resources studies will be finished at that stage. If not we are going to have to use other means until it is in place. It is my intention to try to use that and to give local authorities advance notice.
I wish the Minister well.
I wish myself well also. Of the extra money available to local government next year, I would be anxious, as would most Deputies, to ensure that it goes to the areas or greatest need. For instance, in legislation on conserving the environment and architectural heritage, £300,000 is made available for that purpose by Government decision. This section of the Bill will enable me to say that that £300,000 must be spent in that area and not on something else.
Deputies would agree that some areas have fallen far behind, principally because obligations were imposed on local authorities without providing the finance. In the area of the environment since the late 1980s we have had water and air pollution Acts and other Acts without any money being sent to local government. Local government is or has already come into disrepute because it has not been able to enforce that legislation adequately. It is my intention that we will earmark money for those broad areas for local authorities. That is why this power is necessary initially.
As the needs and resources system comes into place, and as the value for money system and the best practices and performance indicators come increasingly into play, more of that money can be allocated on a discretionary basis rather than in an earmarked block grant. I would like to see the money spent in the areas where it is needed most. That is why the needs and resources studies are taking place and I believe that, in tandem with the model being developed, they will be enormously helpful in deciding the allocation of funding to each local authority and to the different areas.
I understand the Minister's concern with cases where obligations were placed on local authorities without the finance being provided. I agree with him that it was an unfair thing to do and that it put a great deal of pressure on local authorities. I wish I could be comforted by an impression that the Minister would like to change things and give local authorities finance without obligations, but I do not get that impression from him. He has set his mind against it. I understand the Minister's point about £300,000 being made available for a certain purpose, that there might be other cases where a need would occur, that the local authority would request funding from the Minister and that either he or the Government would agree to make it available. I have no objection to that. However, it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a system under which specific needs of that kind could be met on a case by case basis without having the comprehensive power provided for in subsection (2) of the section.
The Minister is asking us to pass this subsection which provides a comprehensive power on the assurance that he intends for there to be a limited application of it. We are prepared to accept the Minister's good intentions and bona fides in the matter. However, we are legislating and we are giving the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the power to specify the use to be made of any money paid to a local authority out of this fund. I know that is not the Minister's intention but that is the power which will be given if we legislate for it and that is why I oppose the subsection.
Does the power under this subsection give the Minister sole discretion over the special fund to local authorities? Has he made any provision for or does he intend to take account of or does the needs and resources study have to take account of the relevant needs of many counties in terms of coastal erosion, an issue which has been neglected in the past? Would the Minister be specifically empowered under this subsection to tackle erosion and what consideration has he given to it as it pertains to local authorities?
As Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I do not have any function in relation to coastal erosion. It is a matter for the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. In the hypothetical situation where the Minister for the Environment and Local Government might in future have responsibility for coastal erosion, money could be earmarked for it. Under the current system, if Galway County Council decided in its needs and resources study that coastal erosion was a need and included it in its calculations for needs, it would be discounted and disregarded because it is not a responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
Even where coastal erosion affects roads and cuts people off from their homes?
The answer is the same. On a more general basis, different needs pertain in different areas. It might be roads in one county and coastal erosion in another and those variables and factors would be taken into account. As regards roads being affected by coastal erosion, that would be dealt with under the roads fund.
On the point made by Deputy Dukes, I understand his difficulty and accept his remarks as regards the wide and sweeping power which seems to be implied. He accepted my bona fides as regards my intent. In deference to him I will examine the matter before Report Stage to see if the section can be worded differently to allay his fears. I do not know if it is possible to narrow it down but I will examine it. When the additional £8 million was available for equalisation I distributed it to local authorities with no strings attached. That is my intent as regards this subsection and it should be that of any Minister for the Environment and Local Government. If one is seeking equalisation, funding should be given to the local authority to let it decide how best to spend it. I will examine the possibility of a more specific wording before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, subsection (6), line 23, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "subsections (1) and (3)".
This amendment to subsection (6) concerns a matter I raised during the private discussion with the Minister. I understand the subsection is worded in a permissive rather than an obligatory sense because of the conventions of parliamentary drafting and that it is the Minister's intention to establish a committee which would include officers or members of local authorities. The purpose of my amendment is not to change the mood of the subsection but to add a specific reference to the matters referred to in subsection (3).
The Minister explained that a number of things may become apparent from the studies being carried out which would help local authorities improve the performance of their functions, and the Minister wishes to have the power to pay money out of the fund from time to time to do that. It seems that, if a committee is advising the Minister on the matters in subsection (1), it would be equally appropriate that he would share with the committee his views on the matters referred to in subsection (3). The same logic applies to that as applies to subsection (1). The Minister might improve it by adopting this amendment.
I accept the point and I am inclined to accept the spirit of the amendment which is not an excuse to render it a Government amendment. The amendment would mean that the committee, once it is established, would have to advise the Minister on both subsections (1) and (3). That is a little inflexible because the Minister might want the committee to advise him or her on subsection (1) while that might not be necessary on subsection (3).
I accept the spirit of the amendment but would make a slight change in terminology. If it is in order, the change can be made now or an amendment can be put down on Report Stage. The wording could be changed to "subsection (6), line 23, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "subsections (1) or (3)" to ensure it does not have to be both subsections. Technically, under the amendment as drafted, if the Minister seeks the committee's advice on subsection (1), he or she must seek advice on subsection (3) as well and that might not be necessary. New wording could provide the flexibility to seek advice on subsections (1) or (3) or both.
Perhaps the Minister would consider it further and deal with it on Report Stage. I understand the Minister's point but I am not sure that his proposed wording would have that effect either.
The advice of the parliamentary draftsman is that the wording meets the objective because the word "or" means "and or".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
I did not put down an amendment with regard to the advisory council but the Minister might reflect on it. Under the previous legislation it was intended that there would be a local government equalisation council whose membership would be drawn from members or former members of local authorities, officers of the Department or a person whom the Minister considered otherwise possessed qualifications or experience that might make him or her suitable for appointment.
There might well be somebody particularly suited to advise members of the committee, as it will now be known, or the Minister and who might be obviously suitable to be included in the committee but who is not a member or an officer of a local authority. Should the Minister not have the flexibility to include such a person should it appeal to him?
The wording of the section does not preclude the appointment of such a person but if the Deputy is suggesting that it should be made explicit, I can examine the possibility on Report Stage.
The wording of subsection (6) is quite loose. I presume "the members of which may include officers or members of local authorities" means the Minister will certainly include them. However, the wording should be framed to encompass other expertise in a clearer way to ensure that not only members of local authorities would be included but that other people with expertise could be available to the Minister.
I accept the Deputy's comments.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 8 is out of order.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 inclusive, not moved.
Sitting suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.
SECTION 8.
May I make a small amendment to amendment No. 12? On line 23, after the word "person", the word "or" should read "of". This is a typographical error.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following subsection:
(7) Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1992, is hereby amended-
(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of the following subparagraphs for subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) (inserted by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1997):
'(ii) a vehicle referred to in section 143(1) of the Act of 1992, or
(iii) a vehicle that is being used in a public place solely for the purposes of-
(I) bringing it to the premises of an authorised tester for the purpose of the carrying out of a test in respect of it (in accordance with an appointment made with that tester for the carrying out of such a test at a particular time on a particular date),
(II) bringing it away from the premises of an authorised tester after the test referred to in clause (I) has been completed or, if circumstances preventing the carrying out or completion of that test arise, bringing it away from those premises on those circumstances arising,
(III) bringing it to a premises for the purpose of the carrying out by a person of repair work in respect of it (in accordance with an appointment made with that person for such work to be carried out at a particular time on a particular date): provided that an appointment has been made with an authorised tester for the carrying out of a test in respect of the vehicle subsequent to the said repair work being completed, or
(IV) bringing it away from the premises referred to in clause (III) after the repair work referred to in that clause has been completed or, if circumstances preventing the carrying out or completion of that work arise, bringing it away from those premises on those circumstances arising.',
and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
'(1A) In subsection (1)-
"authorised tester" means a person appointed, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant regulations concerned providing for such appointments to be made, to carry out the tests on vehicles that are required to be carried out by those regulations;
"relevant regulations" means regulations that are made by the Minister from time to time under any enactment and which require the carrying out of tests in respect of vehicles, and which are specified in those regulations to be relevant regulations for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(iii);
"test" means a test that is required to be carried out in respect of the vehicle concerned by the relevant regulations.
(1B) In any proceedings for an offence concerning a vehicle referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and the duty of excise imposed by the Act of 1952 referred to in that paragraph, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the vehicle is not a vehicle falling within subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (b) of that subsection.'.".
This amendment is designed to provide a better administrative regime for motor taxation offices in their role in enforcing the certificate of road worthiness regulations. It is also designed to eliminate certain abuses in the current system, to make it simpler for the Garda Síochána in relation to general enforcement of the motor tax laws and to make it easier for customers to tax, for the first time, these types of vehicles.
The background to the amendment lies in the somewhat cumbersome system which was introduced in 1992 to overcome a catch 22 which had arisen. Under the European Community's vehicle testing regulations of 1991 persons were prohibited from using vehicles to which these regulations applied - certain commercial vehicles - unless a current certificate of roadworthiness issued under the regulations was in force. It was decided to enforce that provision through the motor taxation code. In other words, a tax disc would not be issued unless a certificate of roadworthiness was produced.
That presented huge difficulties for imported used vehicles in categories liable to the compulsory testing. In order to have the test carried out the vehicle had to be driven on the road but to drive on a public road without a tax disc was an offence. To overcome that difficulty a temporary disc was issued by the motor taxation office, was valid for one month and enabled the owner of the vehicle to go on the public road and have the test carried out in accordance with the 1991 vehicle test regulations and provided that a person would not be liable to a penalty for not having certificate of roadworthiness if the vehicle was being driven to or from the premises of an authorised tester or to or from a garage for repair.
That law also provided that motor taxation offices would not issue any further tax disc unless the vehicle produced a CRW to the taxation office within one month. As often happens, the practice of this law allowed for certain abuses. A substantial minority did not comply with the law. This added to the burden of work for the taxation office, issuing reminders and so on, and much valuable time was lost. For the client there was a needless waste of time visiting the taxation office twice to procure one tax disc.
The new proposal is very simple. It exempts persons from having to tax their commercial vehicles when they want to bring the vehicle to or from the test centre or to or from a garage for repair. This saves time and effort for the tax official and the owner of the vehicle and mirrors the system in operation in the UK. It will make it easier for gardaí to see clearly and to make inquiries from persons not showing a tax disc. Once the CRW is obtained the owner must tax the vehicle and the CRW must be produced before the disc is issued. The change is good for administrators, clients and enforcers of the law. I commend it to the Committee.
Can the Minister clarify if the categories of vehicles envisaged include buses?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 10, subsection (8), line 14, to delete "be" and substitute "by".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 10, lines 32 to 38, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) Section 14 of the Act of 1994 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):
'(3) The term of office of each member of every local authority elected at the elections referred to in subsection (1) and which is current on the commencement of section 9 of the Local Government Act, 1998, shall stand extended so to be in accordance with the holding in the year 1999 of the elections of the members of every such local authority next after such commencement.’.”.
This is a technical amendment to provide for the termination in 1999 of the term of office of numbers of borough and district councils and town commissioners which began in 1994. The amendment makes it clear that the terms of office of these councils, current at the commencement of the Bill, shall stand extended so as to be in accordance with the holding of local elections in 1999. The amendment brings the wording of section 9(1) into line with section 10(2) which provides, separately, for the extension of the terms of office of members of county and county borough councils. The effect of the amendment will be to ensure that the term of office of all existing members of urban authorities, including those co-opted since the 1994 elections, will be extended to 1999. I ask the Select Committee to accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 19 provides the collective citation for sections 9 and 10 of the Bill. Section 10 provides, by way of amendment to the 1994 Act for the postponement to 1999 of elections to all local authorities due to be held in 1998.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 11, line 3, after "shall be" to insert "an".
This is a technical typographical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On Report Stage I will oppose this section. Local democracy has been seriously subverted for a while. This was the case in 1994 when the Fianna Fáil-Labour Administration postponed the local elections to 1998. Again, the Minister is proposing a postponement——
I plead innocence in that regard. The postponement did not happen in 1994.
When were they postponed?
The postponement was included in the previous Local Government Act introduced by my predecessor.
Joe Stalin had a far different way of dealing with these things.
Being a democratic socialist more of the Leon Trotsky persuasion I would know nothing about Joe Stalin.
He was not big into elections either.
The Deputy will have to read the real history as opposed to what appears in tabloids.
Revisionism once again.
We should stick to the subject matter. Whoever postponed the local elections from 1996 to 1998 was subverting local democracy. Local elections are now being postponed for a further year thereby giving local representatives a term which his twice that of the President of the United States, about four times that of a Congressman or woman and twice or three times that of recent Dáil terms. Ordinary people are not happy with this as it impacts on their lives. Local authorities are very important to people in terms of some of the crucial decisions which are made. I refer, for example, to the draft development plans which are currently being discussed by a number of county councils, including Fingal and South Dublin County Councils.
Very serious proposals are coming from management and, undoubtedly, will come from councillors and there will be great debate and controversy in some cases. Discussion of draft development plans is seriously compromised by the fact that councils have been in place for eight years, with councillors serving outside their time of mandate. It is undemocratic for councils in their eighth year and which will be terminated in 1999 to agree a draft development plan which will set the agenda for their area for the next five or ten years. This is a serious interference with democracy.
Will the Minister either allow the elections go ahead in 1998 - at this stage they would have to be postponed until September - or at least make provision that the major components of the draft development plans are not finally voted upon until the new councils are in place. At the end of 1998 and in 1999 the final vote on draft development plans will be taken, perhaps a month or two before the local elections, by councils whose terms are about to end. This compromises the procedure. It would be far more democratic and much better for new planning if the decision was taken by a new council. The election campaign could discuss the crucial issues in the draft development plan.
The Minister should take these points on board and between now and Report Stage dwell on them and return with relevant proposals.
I would not normally make any comment on this, but Deputy Higgins said a few things which need to be challenged. The last local elections took place in 1991. Normally, the term of office of councillors elected at that time would have come to an end in 1996. I do not know what Deputy Higgins's experience has been since 1996, but I assure the committee that I have not experienced a succession of outraged voters beating a path to my door to complain about the extension of the life of their local authorities. Perhaps Deputy Higgins's experience is very different - if so I am not too surprised. I am not aware of substantial numbers of Members having a large volume of complaints from people saying they are outraged because elections did not take place in 1996.
As a general rule I have always thought it very unwise to extend the term of office of local authorities. For this reason, I was unhappy with the extension as I was with previous extensions. The Minister has met much of the concern. This year there is an opportunity, by coincidence, to provide that we hold local authority elections at the same time as elections to the EU Parliament. It is a very good juxtaposition as we are electing people to local authorities, the nearest level of democratic representation, and to the EU Parliament, the level which is furthest away, a term I do not like but which, in practice, reflects reality. It would be far more important to establish as unalterably as possible the position that from now on elections to all local authorities, including urban councils and town commissions, and to the European Parliament be held simultaneously every five years. This will happen in 1999 and I think it is the Minister's intention that this should be the case.
Is there anything we can do through legislation which would discourage future Governments from departing from this? I know the legal answer is that no Dáil can tie the hands of a succeeding Dáil and that the only way to do so would be through constitutional provision, something I do not think would be particularly appropriate. I would like the provisions of the Bill to clearly state our intention of ensuring these elections are held simultaneously every five years and that Governments do not give to the temptation of extending the lifetime of local authorities for the kinds of spurious reasons given in the past.
I fundamentally disagree with what Deputy Higgins said about councils in their dying days adopting development plans. I regret that Deputy Higgins has given in to the temptation of making a rather populist point without, it seems, reflecting on the meaning of what he is saying. There is a continuity in the responsibility of local authorities, as there is in the responsibility of the Oireachtas and of Governments that does not depend on the faces around the table. There is nothing incongruous about local authorities, the lives of which are to terminate in 1999, making decisions in 1998 on development plans which will be valid for some years into the future. It is nonsensical to say that because there will be another election in 1999 local authorities should not carry out the obligations we have placed on them in our planning legislation in 1998.
I deplore the fact that this committee would be used as yet another platform for unreflecting populist argument which ignores the other feature of democracy. We all know that faces change from time to time and it is the right of the electorate to change them. The underlying fundamental responsibilities are continuous. The fact there are different faces, parties and personalities in either local authorities or national Government should not prevent the exercise of continuing responsibilities to the public and should not be used as a means for preventing local authorities from carrying out their statutory functions.
There is a great deal of merit in what Deputy Higgins said about development plans. It is an important process and it would be useful if the Minister ensured that the adoption of such plans will not be finalised until a fresh council with a fresh mandate is in place. That is my view having listened to numerous representations from various community groups. Once the electorate has made its decision, there will be an absolute freshness about the mandate and it will give an added strength to the development plan.
As regards the overall issue of postponing elections, it is part of the general attitude of central government to local government over the decades that local elections can be deferred and nobody will rant and rave or lobby Deputies or anyone else about it. I am not making a party political point but this has contributed to lessening the status of local government over the years.
It is fortuitous that the European Parliament elections will be held next year. The natural cycle of such elections will be five years. We should all firmly resolve to hold that cycle intact because it will be a fixed time and it will maximise the turnout, which is extremely important. Those of us who watched the UK local government elections during the past month saw that the turnout was 10 per cent in some areas. That is a cause for concern. We need to ensure that people understand the importance of local government and that we make it meaningful and attractive for them to vote. All parties should declare their firm resolve to do this. I do not know how we would do it because, as Deputy Dukes said, there is no way around it short of a constitutional amendment.
The excuse that elections cannot be held because local government reform is imminent has been used periodically since Adam was a boy. Local government reform is ongoing and it will not come to an end next year. That should not be an excuse for any delays. The arbitrariness of holding and not holding elections and fixing dates has happened in the past. The 1998 date was fixed in statute and that is why we must amend it now. A firm promise was made by the then Minister for the Environment that comprehensive reform would be in place by this year. However, that has not happened. Much good has been done and will be done during this process of reform but we cannot use that as an excuse not to have elections. That will be a contributory factor in the future.
All political parties agree that the period linking local government elections with European elections should be sacrosanct. I am anxious that all political parties declare that publicly. There will be reasons we will not want that to happen. Opinion polls, for example, will show our parties are not popular and councillors will not want it at times. However, that is no reason to take action which undermines local government and public respect for local government.
There is merit in considering the point made by Deputy Higgins about bringing development plans to finality and ensuring that the most crucial ingredient of a development plan, public support, is clearly available.
As regards the points made by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Higgins, will a decision be made that a council is coming to the end of its term during the third, fourth or fifth year of a five year cycle? Councillors who have been elected by the people are obliged to pass county development plans. There should not be a problem if current local authority members do so. As Deputy Dukes said, they must fulfil their obligations and there is no reason they cannot do so. We spoke earlier about interfering at local government level. If we start interfering with the role of local authority members in passing county development plans because of decisions made at national level, it will undermine democracy at local government level.
Like other members of the committee, I do not want local government elections postponed at any time in the future because it affects the status of local government. This practice has gone on ad infinitum. Almost every local election for the past 40 or 50 years has been postponed for one or two years because it did not suit the party in power as it felt it would not do as well as it should. We cannot be accused of that this time as we currently stand at 63 per cent in the opinion polls. I intend to ensure this practice does not continue.
Cynics may say that because I am the Minister I am postponing the local elections and promising it will not happen again. However, there are justifiable reasons, other than those mentioned by the Deputies, for postponing them. It is my intention that a new local government reform Bill will be enacted before the end of this year and that we will elect councils and councillors to a new system of local government which will have seen many changes. Some of those changes were started by my predecessor, including the strategic policy committees which are only now getting under way. We have given them 12 months to establish themselves and to learn what needs to be learned. Whatever mistakes are made will be useful for us.
There is a need for new blood in the system. If elections were held this June without people knowing what the changes are and the approaches we are adopting there would be no great change in the make up of personnel at local government level; there would be very few new faces. There would be a danger that the new system put in place would not have the impetus needed because of the make up of the local authorities.
It would be very undemocratic. I take Deputy Higgins's point. However, it is equally valid, in terms of being democratic, to argue that were we to go ahead with the elections this year we would be doing so on the basis of electoral areas drawn up in 1985. There have been two censuses since then and in electoral areas within local authorities there are huge population disparities; and that is not to mention the disparity in the ratio of councillors to population in the Dublin area, particularly in south Dublin. For these reasons I feel justified in trying to get those matters right and in place before we go about electing local authorities.
I intend to try to address the point made about avoiding a person in my position doing this again in the future. Mention was made of constitutional safeguards and I intend to bring forward an amendment to the Constitution to give specific recognition to local government and to fix the interval at which local elections can take place by putting them on the same footing as Dáil elections. Whatever excuses a future Minister or Government might have they will not have the freedom to act on them without a cumbersome referendum procedure. I intend to hold that referendum in conjunction with the local elections, if not beforehand.
I do not accept the argument that the development plan processes and procedures are compromised by the fact that councils which have been in situ for eight years will make decisions on them. While development plans are meant to be an outline for five to seven years they can be changed by local authorities, irrespective of their make up or whether there is an election. Members will be aware that a strategic plan is being drawn up for the greater Dublin area. I imagine that in itself will lead to some amendments to the development plans being put in place currently. Councils are in a position to change development plans during their lifetime.
This is the most democratic way to approach this matter because over the next few months councillors will have to make decisions on development in their areas through the process of the development plan. There will be those for and against the developments. It can be argued that the very fact of facing into an election within 12 months will make them listen with greater care to the public in finalising the development plans. It would be different for a new council which would not have to face the electorate for five years. There is validity to the opposite argument which Deputy Higgins makes.
This will be a real test of people power. If those who set themselves up as arbiters, who criticise councillors and allege all sorts of goings on are not satisfied with what is happening they can go before the people next June to see if they can be elected. A number of those who claim to speak for all the people would never be elected. However, if development plans to which they are opposed are passed they will have an opportunity to go up for election next June. Councillors will be well aware of that. The opposite argument to the Deputy's is the stronger. Come next June those who are dissatisfied with the development plans can go through the review procedures. They will have that opportunity anyway with the changes brought about through the strategic planning.
I do not accept that the procedure will be compromised. It will be more open and democratic than ever because elections are coming up. There is nothing like an election to focus the minds of politicians.
We are facing into an election in which the Minister is endeavouring to have one of the biggest ever shake-out of councillors. He is introducing provisions to encourage people with long service to leave vacancies for newer and younger candidates. This means that a significant percentage of people voting on critical development plans will be doing so in the knowledge that they will not be going up for election, which lends validity to my argument. I have no difficulty with beginning the process and progressing it but it should not be finalised. Crucial elements of the proposals could then be debated in the course of the election campaign. People could thus have a real democratic say in the direction of the development plan which sets the trend for five or ten years or for all time in some elements.
My experience is different to that of Deputy Dukes, perhaps because more controversies erupt in the greater Dublin area than in tranquil County Kildare, although that county has seen its controversies with regard to planning in the past two or three years. Deputy Dukes is right; there is a continuity in the planning process and the development plan process from one council to the next, but the composition of county councils can make fundamental differences with regard to the specifics. Whether Laraghcon on the slopes of the Liffey valley is rezoned for luxury housing is determined by whether there is a coalition of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael councillors to push the proposal through. If it is the subject of a campaign debate, that rezoning coalition might not be elected to carry through such a crucial and unjustified rezoning; that is incongruous when the council is almost eight years old and out of its time. I do not understand why that cannot be accepted. I agree with the Minister about the disparities in the new electoral areas. That should and could have been taken care of at an earlier stage.
There is an outbreak of virtue all around. Having said it twice, once in 1994 and again today, we are saying "never again". If the Minister brings forward a constitutional amendment to peg it into four or five year terms, we will be convinced. However, until then I will be excused for being doubtful.
Deputy Howlin made a crucial point about public support for the development plan and the decisions taken. The Minister is probably receiving letters from enraged citizens of the greater Lucan area who are facing a rezoning of 500 acres, beside an already massively expanded area. This decision is being taken by a council out of its time, some of whom will be retiring.
I am proposing a fresh mandate. Even though the Minister rejected it the first time, which does not surprise me, I ask him to reflect on it again between now and Report Stage.
I did not say that Deputy Higgins' arguments are invalid. However, my arguments are equally valid and I happen to be in the position I am in at the moment.
Deputy Higgins insinuated that councillors considering not contesting the next election might act irresponsibly in drawing up development plans. That is an insult to councillors throughout the country. They try their best by making every effort to improve the areas they represent. Deputy Higgins was irresponsible in the manner in which he spoke about the councillors.
The Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, said that rezoning in Dublin was debased currency.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 12, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11.-Where immediately prior to the passing of this Act a person held a temporary appointment to perform the functions of an office or employment to which section 2(1)(b) of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, would have applied but for the temporary nature of the appointment, the appointment, during the two years commencing on such passing, of that person to the office or employment, being an office or employment up to and including the grade of Executive Engineer and cognate grades, on a permanent basis shall not be deemed to be an appointment to an office to which the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, applies.".
I am grateful to the Minister for his letter which I read with interest. He gave the reasoning behind his decision to inhibit the Local Appointments Commission from determining a number of appointments in the local government system. I am not convinced by the argument. The Local Appointments Commission has acted extremely well and has a great deal of public and institutional support from the local government system in the appointments it has made to date. The main reason given by the Minister for inhibiting the Local Appointments Commission from making such appointments is twofold - first, it has to make so many decisions on relatively low grade posts and second there are a number of temporary, long-term staff who need to have their positions regularised without having to go through the process of applying for their own jobs and being vetted by the commission.
My amendment deals with the issue of long-term temporary appointments, so they can be made permanent without destroying the whole basis of appointment. I do not know how convincing the arguments made to the Minister have been about the inundation of work to the Local Appointments Commission. The correct approach must be to resource the commission to an adequate degree to carry out its independent function, rather than to remove its responsibility regarding technical grades which have given it a great deal of public and institutional support.
I hope the Minister will reflect further on his decision. It might have been his first way of addressing a twofold problem. However, he will damage the local government system and the appointment of important grades in the Public Service by removing the functionality of the Local Appointments Commission in those appointments.
I would be grateful if Deputy Dukes will clarify his amendment. His amendment as it stands continues to require all professional posts below the level of county secretary and senior executive engineer to be filled by the Local Appointments Commission. It will then be left open to me as Minister to designate by order to have the higher level posts filled by the LSE, or to take away that responsibility from it. I am not sure if that is what the Deputy intends.
The Minister has cut my grass. I owe the committee an apology for drafting an amendment in haste that goes in the opposite direction to that I intended. I also apologise to the Bills office who drew my attention to this yesterday by telephone, but I did not have my papers with me. Perhaps the committee will indulge me as it has done the Minister, I will amend the amendment and replace "below" with "above".
I waited to make that amendment until we had received the Minister's letter on this matter. The amendment was not conditioned by the confusion which arose by the mention of an order rather than a determination in the Minister's letter. The Minister's letter makes the case clearly in terms of his proposed objective. However, by proceeding in the way the Minister proposes to in the Bill, he replaces a situation of difficulty in the operation of the commission with a situation which will be less certain.
I do not know what the procedure will be under the relevant provision of the 1926 Act, which is framed in a way which contemplates determinations being made on a case by case basis. I may be wrong, but it does not seem it can be read exclusively in terms of making determinations that cover a class of cases or employment. If that is the true, the Minister may not solve the problem by making a determination. Legally that determination may apply only to a specific case. My amendment and Deputy Howlin's can be taken together because the two provisions can co-exist, they are not alternatives. Deputy Howlin's amendments relate to one group of people who have already been referred to by the Minister. I agree with Deputy Howlin's approach in seeking to resolve that problem.
Correspondence has been exchanged and I hope it was helpful to Members. Under this section I propose to bring professional technical staff members of local authorities into line with the current system that applies to administrative and non-professional staff. Unfortunately, members of the general public perceive this approach to be sinister. It would be good practice if local management had some control over the recruitment process. I want to introduce a balance between local recruitment at all levels and the present centralised recruitment system for all professional staff. The LAC has to do its job and do it properly. The removal of the lower level appointments process from the LAC will help it do that job more effectively.
I agree with Deputy Howlin's comments on the LAC. It has done good work in the past. Its members and the LAC itself have a high reputation. It also has public support. The amendment does not cast any aspersions on the impartial manner in which it carries out its work of appointing officers. No Member can support it when it claims to be unable to fill low level posts because of the huge number of vacancies. The LAC currently appoints county and city managers, assistant managers, county secretaries, finance officers, town clerks in the larger towns and all posts requiring a professional qualification such as architects, engineers, lawyers, planners, quantity surveyors, etc. The greatest demand placed on the LAC is to fill professional posts. Engineering posts filled by the LAC can range from the equivalent of a higher executive officer in the Civil Service to the equivalent engineering grade.
The purpose of this section is to remove the absolute statutory requirement that every permanent local authority officer for which a professional qualification is required has to be filled by the LAC. It provides that posts requiring professional qualifications are on an equal basis with the administrative posts I referred to earlier. If this Bill is enacted, inclusive of this section, the Minister will have to specify the level at which the LAC will continue to fill posts. I propose the LAC continues to fill all senior technical and administrative posts in the local authority service.
Many professionals fear that the Minister will have control over appointments. If paragraph (b) is removed the Minister may prescribe thereafter.
Appointments are not prescribed as such under the 1926 Act either.
In the 1926 Act it states: "every office and every employment not being an office or employment of a teacher under local authority the qualifications of which are wholly or in part professional or technical are subject to LAC appointment". If this section is removed the Minister can determine the grades subject to LAC appointment and then the Minister's successor may have a different view of these grades.
That is the current position in relation to administrative staff. Nobody has pointed out why there should be such a huge difference between the professional staff and the administrative staff. There is no valid reason for staff at the equivalent administrative level to be treated in a different manner to that of staff at a professional level.
With respect, there is. Administrative staff can move from one area of operation without difficulty because of the nature of their work. It is much more difficult for professional staff to do the same. Throughout the Public Service there are many reasons for the scope for movement for professional and technical staff. Deputy Howlin pointed out the very comprehensive nature of the measure in the Bill and this would lead me to specify in the amendment "just a particular group". The Minister pointed out in his own letter that there is a location for a particular part of the problem. Deputy Howlin's amendment deals with one of the problems and my amendment deals with another. As a rule, in legislation it is better to adopt a straightforward solution than to adopt a wide-ranging catch-all provision that could be used in a way that it was never intended.
County managers are recruited from professional grades.
That is to be encouraged and I have no problem with that. We are trying to recognise the difficulty outlined by the Minister in his letter and put forward a mechanism to address it without giving such a broad remit whereby the Minister can decide that all technical staff, regardless of grade, can be appointed by local management. The LAC should continue to appoint some grades and Deputy Dukes has outlined in his amendment what those grades are. My amendment deals with the anomaly where to circumvent the requirement of going through the LAC procedure people were given temporary employment which lasted for years. This situation should be recognised and it can be rectified by my amendment. If the Minister needs time to consider this then I can come back to it on Report Stage but I would like him to accept my amendment.
I am not willing to accept the amendments. I am looking at section 2 of the 1926 Act. I accept the points made by both Deputies in relation to this matter. One of the difficulties I have in combining these amendments is that it would not be advantageous to tie my hands completely because in the future new posts will be created in local authorities. I take the point made by the Deputies that we should be more specific instead of adopting a catch-all provision that would allow my successor to adopt a different strategy or remove them altogether. I hope we can come up with an amendment that will meet both our needs.
I am anxious that there will be flexibility and we will not clog up the LAC. We should, therefore, adopt two principles. We should try to relieve congestion in the LAC and positions should be filled locally as far as is possible. Since we are debating local government reform and devolution of powers it is important to be flexible. It is also important that local management, after due process, has the power to appoint people. I agree with Deputy Howlin's comments about having representative people on interview boards, etc. I will look at this on Report Stage and the Deputies can resubmit their amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 12, before section 12, to insert the following new section:
12.-(1) A local authority may, subject to and in accordance with a scheme under subsection (3), and the provisions of this section, grant a gratuity (in this section referred to as 'a gratuity') to a person in respect of his or her service as a member of that authority, being service that, in every case, includes service as such a member subsequent to the last ordinary day of retirement of members of that authority prior to the passing of this Act.
(2) No more than one gratuity may be granted by a local authority to a person in respect of his or her service as a member of that authority.
(3) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make a scheme or schemes for the purposes of this section (which or each of which is referred to in this section as 'a scheme').
(4) A scheme shall-
(a) specify the method by which the amount of a gratuity to be granted under this section by a local authority ('the local authority') shall be determined,
(b) specify conditions which must be satisfied before a grant of a gratuity may be made (including a condition as to the minimum period of service the person concerned must have had as a member of the local authority),
(c) provide for the making of an application to the local authority by a person for the grant to him or her of a gratuity,
(d) specify procedures to be followed, and requirements to be complied with, in relation to the making of such an application ('an application') and the making by the local authority of a decision in respect of it, and the matters in respect of which provision under this paragraph may be made include-
(i) the form in which an application shall be made,
(ii) time limits within which an application shall be made,
(iii) the notification by a local authority to a person of the making of a decision to grant to him or her a gratuity, and
(iv) the revocation by a local authority of such a decision in the event that circumstances specified in the scheme occur (and such circumstances may include the fact that the applicant stands nominated as a candidate in an election of members of that authority held after the commencement of this section),
(e) require a specified officer of the local authority to provide a statement to the members of the authority of the number of decisions made by the authority to grant a gratuity,
(f) provide for any matters consequential on, or incidental to, the foregoing matters (including the period of time that may elapse between the grant of a gratuity and the payment thereof) or which the Minister considers necessary or expedient to provide for in relation to subsections (6) and (7).
(5) A scheme under subsection (3) may contain different provisions in relation to different local authorities.
(6) If a person is paid a gratuity by a local authority and that person, at any time after the local elections next after the commencement of this section, becomes a member of that authority, whether by his or her being elected or his or her being co-opted pursuant to section 11 of the Act of 1994, that person shall, within 14 days after his or her term of office as such member begins, repay to that authority the amount of the gratuity.
(7) If a person fails to repay to a local authority the amount of a gratuity in accordance with subsection (6), the authority shall deduct from one or more of the following allowances, remuneration or other moneys such sum or sums as will secure the repayment to it of the amount of the gratuity, namely
(a) any allowance, or amount in respect of expenses, payable to the person pursuant to section 42 or 51 of the Local Government Act, 1991,
(b) such allowances, amounts in respect of expenses or other remuneration as may be payable to the person pursuant to any other enactment (including any enactment passed after the commencement of this section),
(c) such other moneys as may be otherwise payable to the person by the authority from whatever source.
(8) Nothing in the Local Elections Acts, 1974 to 1997, or any instrument made thereunder, shall operate to prevent the grant or payment of a gratuity.
(9) No gratuity shall be granted or paid by a local authority to a person in respect of his or her service as a member of that local authority otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section and a scheme or schemes made thereunder.
(10) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make a scheme amending or revoking a scheme under this section (including a scheme under this subsection).
(11) Every scheme under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the scheme is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the scheme has been laid before it, the scheme shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
(12) Sub-article (1) of article 14 of the Local Elections Regulations, 1995 (S.I. No. 297 of 1995), is hereby amended by the insertion after his or her consent of in writing, and the said sub-article (1), as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
(1) At an election a person may nominate himself or herself as a candidate or may, with his or her consent in writing, be nominated by another person (being a person registered as an elector in the area of the local authority for which the person proposes to nominate the candidate) as a proposer.".
Members will be aware of my proposal to apply long service gratuities to local authority members on a once-off basis. A requirement of the gratuity scheme is that it will be payable to members who retire before the next local elections. I am sure Members are aware of councillors who have given long years of service and this deserves to be recognised, particularly as we are going to adopt a new system. A member of the Edenderry town commission has given 53 years service and I think he is the longest serving member in the country.
My amendment is an enabling one which will allow me to draw up a scheme which will specify a variety of things such as the amount of the gratuity, etc. The system will operate on the basis that councillors who intend to avail of the gratuity will have to apply within a specified period, for example, two or three months. There will also be specifications about the procedures to be followed, the requirements to be complied with, the form of application, etc. The gratuity will recognise the years of long service given by councillors under the old system of local government. It will also help pave the way for new councillors to join the new system of local government post-1999.
I welcome the provision. It is important to recognise long service. I have read the convoluted mechanisms but I understand that they are necessary. The level of gratuity should reflect the amount of work done by councillors. I know there was a long campaign for a pension scheme but it was not acceded to because there were no pension contributions and no salaries were paid to councillors. A gratuity scheme would recognise their service. Is this a once-off scheme or will new legislation have to be enacted to allow a second scheme? Can the Minister specify the amount allocated for a gratuity scheme?
As I read the provision, the text of the provision does not limit the gratuity to persons who retire. However, it is silent on a distinction that might be made between persons who retire as elected members of a local authority and people who are forcibly retired because they are not re-elected.
We can expect a few casualties.
On numerous occasions, the Minister assured me that he has frequent contact with members of local authorities. I am sure he is aware of local authority members who would like to contemplate the future with a little more equanimity than might otherwise be the case if there was a possibility they would receive a gratuity even if they were unsuccessful candidates at the local elections next year. The text of this provision does not determine that question and it would be open to the Minister to decide whether defeated candidates with previous local government service are entitled to the gratuity. Will the Minister confirm the situation? I am not suggesting the Minister should amend this provision to sort out my query but perhaps he will consider it before Report Stage. I know a computerised statistical analysis of previous elections can be used to determine whether a candidate will be successful but the same cannot be done for the electorate.
Subsection 3 provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make a scheme or schemes. We all know that the consent of the Minister for Finance is essential. The Minister will not tell the Minister for Finance it will cost a certain amount plus an indeterminate amount.
I also notice there is no provision here for making any orders or regulations to bring these into force. Even with the consent of the Minister for Finance it would be necessary to have a provision for making orders. Are we back to the provision in section 2(3) which allows the Minister to make regulations in respect of any of this? If he uses this measure, does the Minister intend to make a provision where he can apply these gratuities to various classes of persons without having to seek the approval of the Oireachtas?
I welcome any scheme which recognises the contribution made by local authority members, particularly long serving members. It is important to emphasise that no one will be forced to avail of the scheme.
My only difficulty with the scheme lies with the treatment of defeated candidates. I know new blood is essential for any organisation, whether it is sporting, voluntary or political and it is also essential that more women and young people participate in the elections but if we are honest about recognising the contribution made by local authority members we should be prepared to pay them some gratuity for it. If there are two people with 20 years' service in a local authority and one decided not to contest the next election while the other is unsuccessful, considering their contribution has been the same, both should be entitled to the same gratuity. I would be reluctant to rule out those who decide to context the election.
Having known Deputy Power for a long time and I know he is a humanitarian, I am sure he would find what I must do difficult. I have to offer this scheme to councillors and allow them three or four months to decide if they wish to avail of it. As Deputy Power is a former bookie I can say I do not propose to give people a two way bet. If councillors opt for the new system, they will have to take the consequences. Therefore, if they fail to be re-elected they will not qualify for the gratuity because it will operate on the basis of approval being granted before a certain date and then it will cease.
Is that explicit in the scheme or regulations?
It will be explicit in the regulations and under the schemes.
It strikes me that you could apply for a gratuity, gain approval and still stand for election. You would only have to pay it back if you were successful in being re-elected.
No, new section 12(d)(iv) states:
the revocation by a local authority of such a decision in the event that circumstances specified in the scheme occur (and such circumstances may include the fact that the applicant stands nominated as a candidate in an election of members of that authority held after the commencement of this section),
I wish to clarify that people will get the opportunity to apply for a gratuity but if they stand for election they will not get it even if they are defeated. I hope not every long serving councillor will go for the gratuity because local authorities need experience. These people are being given a choice but people will have to deal with the consequences if they take a certain option.
Many Members asked whether the gratuity applies to defeated candidates; the answer is no. Deputy Howlin's second question related to whether the amount of the gratuity was sufficient and acknowledges the length of service. I hope the gratuity will be a reasonable amount. Estimates of between £1,000 and £1,500 per year would be unacceptable. The long serving councillor from Edenderry would be happy with it.
You might not have to go as far as Edenderry
I am open to debate this issue and the figures have not as yet been finalised with the Minister for Finance.
There is another category of people who in the past 12 months voluntarily stood down. Will the Minister look into this situation?
It is my intention that the gratuity scheme would apply to councillors who were elected on the last occasion; I know some Members would like me to include councillors from the 1940s. It is important to look at the service given but it is reasonable to look after councillors elected under the current system too.
Does it exclude officeholders by law?
Yes, current officeholders.
I have no difficulty with former officeholders being excluded from that provision or if people are excluded by law from participation. Some people, for very good reasons, have stood down in recent times to hand over to more capable or younger people. Is it the Minister's intention that these people should be included within its compass?
Under this proposal would it be possible for a member to retire from one local authority, stand for election in another local authority and receive the gratuity? For example, can a life long member of the current Cork Corporation retire, be elected to the council and receive a gratuity?
Yes, in that case a person would be retiring from "a" local authority. The provision states the service to a local authority. Therefore, if a person is a member of two local authorities and retires from one he would be entitled to a gratuity from it.
What if he retires from one local authority and then stands in the next election?
He cannot stand for the same local authority.
If a member of Cork Corporation for 20 years retired and had not been a member of the council, could they stand for the council elections and continue as a local authority member? Can these people receive a gratuity?
That is a very good question I have not addressed. I looked at this from the angle of someone who was a member of two local authorities and retired from only one. I will look at the scenario you have suggested but it will be covered in the scheme.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 12, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Local Elections Acts, 1974 to 1997, and sections 9 and 10 may be cited together as the Local Elections Acts, 1974 to 1998, and they shall be construed together as one.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to
We agreed at the outset to break at 6 p.m. for an hour. Is it agreed that we continue and complete the Bill? Agreed.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 13, paragraph 2(c), line 36, to delete "any vehicle" and substitute "Any vehicle".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error by correcting a lower case "a" to an upper case "A".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 13, paragraph 2(d)(i), line 60, to delete "proceedings" and substitute "proceeding".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.