I welcome members to the meeting, the purpose of which is the consideration by the committee of the Local Government Bill 2003. I also welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. I suggest that we consider the Bill until its conclusion and if we do not conclude our consideration of it by 1 p.m., we will adjourn for lunch and monitor progress at that time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Local Government Bill 2003: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1) line 18, to delete "from being elected or co-opted to, or".
The Labour Party supports the abolition of the dual mandate. There are two issues contained in this provision, one of which is the question of Members of the Oireachtas being prevented from being members of a local authority and the second is Members of the Oireachtas being prevented from standing for election to a local authority. It is our view that a distinction should be made between the two.
While the time has come to make the divide between service in the national Parliament and service in a local authority, there should not be a prohibition on Members of the Oireachtas standing for election for a local authority. If the Minister were to respond to this, he might minimise the exposure of the legislation constitutionally. Whatever about there being a prohibition on Members of the Oireachtas being members of local authorities - there are a number of precedents in regard to people who may not be members of local authorities - the territory becomes much more uncertain, in a constitutional sense, if individuals are to be prevented from standing for election for local authorities and if the people are given the option of deciding. This amendment would leave in place the prohibition on membership of local authorities for Members of the Oireachtas, but it would enable them to stand for election or for co-option to local authorities.
There are practical circumstances where this might arise and where it might be a good thing, for example, if local elections and a general election were due to take place within a relatively short period of time. A Member of the Oireachtas might no longer wish to hold that office, for one reason or another, but might wish to continue as a public representative and decide to stand for election to a local authority. It is unreasonable that he or she would have to resign his or her membership of the Oireachtas before standing for election for the local authority. The issue of resignation or making the choice should arise only when the Member is elected to a local authority.
It is also reasonable to protect that provision against the possibility of Members of the Oireachtas simply standing in local elections to win a seat on a local authority and then pass it on by co-option. That is what amendment No. 2 seeks to address. If a Member of the Oireachtas stands for election to a local authority, is elected and does not resign his or her membership of the Oireachtas to take the seat on the local authority, it should go to the next highest placed candidate in the election rather than to a co-opted member.
The amendment is suggested as a refinement of what is proposed in the legislation. It has practical implications and would facilitate a situation where Members of the Oireachtas might, in certain circumstances, be attracted back into service in the local authority, which might be a good thing in the interests of local government and public representation generally. It protects against people simply standing for election to block a seat for co-option. It also probably somewhat fireproofs the legislation against a possible constitutional challenge.
I have examined the amendment in detail and I compliment the Deputy on it. He obviously put much thought into it. It is an interesting proposal and I understand what he is trying to achieve. I will outline the technicalities involved before we discuss it further.
The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to permit Members of the Dáil to continue to stand for election or to be proposed for co-option to local councils. The amendment would delete wording from what will be section 13A of the 2001 Act. Section 13 of that Act currently sets out a range of disqualifications and, importantly, uses the same wording in respect of judges, the Ceann Comhairle, MEPs, EU officeholders, Ministers, Ministers of State, civil servants, gardaí. etc. What is in the Bill is based specifically on the consistency of what is already in the legislation on those disqualifications to ensure there will not be two different types of disqualification. The existing disqualification stands up and that is why it was done on that basis.
Persons holding such posts are disqualified from being elected or co-opted to or from being a member of a local authority. The same arrangements will now apply to Oireachtas Members. Nobody is being prevented from becoming a local authority member. It is a matter of personal choice. If a garda, county manager, judge or a Minister wishes to stand for a local election, they are free to resign their position and undertake a career in local government. The Bill applies the same rules to Members of the Oireachtas. I do not want to create different levels between different people.
It is the stated policy of the Government, and was, indeed, the policy of the rainbow Government, which included Deputy Gilmore, to strengthen the democratic and representational role of local government. This position was endorsed by the people in the constitutional amendment adopted by referendum in 1999. The abolition of the dual mandate is a significant element in the further implementation of this policy.
I am not in favour of a watered down version of the abolition of the dual mandate. It is a matter of free choice to stand for election to a local authority. The Bill, as drafted, will encourage candidates to make a positive decision in favour of a position in local government in advance of standing for election. It will promote the election of people already committed to being local authority members. The local electorate deserves no less.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1, as it would only apply if Members of the Oireachtas were not to be disqualified from election. While it may on the surface appear to be a simple means of deciding who gets the local authority seat left unfilled if a Member of the Oireachtas fails to resign his or her parliamentary seat, this method of filling the seat could not be operated under current electoral law and count rules. The replacement, post-election, of an ineligible candidate is not as simple as picking the highest loser under current electoral law. In many cases, it might not be clear who is the highest unsuccessful candidate.
The count rules permit short-cuts to fill last seats, which may result in certain surpluses remaining undistributed. The rules do not require the remaining unsuccessful candidates to be put in order at all, only those who are elected. To attempt to implement Deputy Gilmore's proposal would give rise to uncertainty and doubt as to how far down the list of unsuccessful candidates a returning officer would have to determine, in case any Oireachtas Members elected in a local authority election might not resign their Oireachtas seats. Significant changes in election rules would have to be put in place to implement the proposal. As I do not accept the Deputy's primary argument about permitting Oireachtas Members to stand for local elections, I do not accept the need to consider the rule changes necessary to implement the detail of the proposal.
I have given much thought to what DeputyGilmore said. The consequences of accepting the amendments have significant ramifications in the context of how the electoral system is operated. We would have to adopt a new way of doing things in the election process. If a Member of the Oireachtas was standing in the local election, the returning officer would have to take cognisance not just of who wins in the election but also the results further down the list. The level of detail in terms of transferring surpluses and so forth to rank all the candidates in the election would be a fundamental change. Instead of simply filling the four or five seats in the ward, one would have to be conscious of filling another seat by an undefined person. I accept the Deputy's point that it should be the next candidate, but it would be like running two separate elections. The rules in the existing legislation do not permit that and we would have to amend the electoral law to overcome it.
I see the difficulty from the point of view of the count and the electoral law. The point, however, could be addressed in the regulations governing elections to the local authority if there was a requirement on candidates to sign a declaration that, if elected, they would take their seats. The count could then proceed on the basis of the returning officer knowing what ballot papers could be discounted.
It is reasonable to say that simultaneous membership of the Oireachtas and a local authority should no longer be permitted for all the reasons we have debated, although I realise there are differing views on this. However, it is stretching things too far to say a Member of the Oireachtas should be prevented from standing for election, unless that Member resigns his or her seat in the Oireachtas. That is in a different league to a judge. If a judge or a senior civil servant wants to enter the electoral fray, of course, there is a requirement that they should resign because of the constitutional separation of powers. However, the same should not apply to somebody who is engaged in the political process as a public representative, such as a Member of the Oireachtas. I have cited the example of a Member of the Oireachtas who might see themselves as coming towards the end of their career in national politics but wants to continue in local politics. There are plenty of examples where people have continued in service at local authority level. In addition, someone might feel that for career, business or family reasons they could no longer continue as a Member of the Oireachtas but wish to continue to make a contribution at local authority level. It would be unreasonable to oblige such a person to resign their seat in the Oireachtas before they could be nominated. They should be able to stand for election.
I accept that one then has to prevent a situation where somebody stands for election purely to get the co-option for whoever they want to be co-opted. I think one could get over that - and the rules of the county - if, for example, there was a requirement that at the nomination stage the candidate would sign some kind of declaration stating "If elected, I will take my seat". The returning officer would then know the ballot papers of the Oireachtas Member were to be counted. If that declaration was not signed and the Oireachtas Member was standing to make some kind of political point about an issue in a grandstand manner, then the ballot papers would not be counted. I accept what the Minister is saying in terms of the electoral legislation and rules of the county but it should be possible to find a way around that. A distinction should be made between the prohibition on dual membership and the prohibition on standing for election.
I fully understand from where the Deputy is coming. I was interested and intrigued when I saw the amendment and thought it through, and I can see what the Deputy is driving at. The difference is, however, that the rules governing membership of the Oireachtas are very specific. As the Deputy well knows, because he was appointed as a Minister of State, the minute a Minister or Minister of State is appointed he or she ceases to be a member of a local authority. That is the law but one cannot do that in reverse - in other words, ceasing to be a Member of the Dáil if one is elected to a local authority. That is because the legislation governing general elections is different, and it should be. I am not sure how well the Deputy's suggestion about signing declarations might stand up in practice. Notwithstanding that, however, I do not have an antipathy to the Deputy's essential point, that is, ending the dual mandate while leaving it open for anyone to run. I fully understand what the Deputy is trying to achieve but I am unsure of the consequences.
Before publishing the Bill, I considered that position. One of the factors guiding me was to bring clarity and absolute certainty to this by not getting into a false situation with the public whereby front-runners stand for election, win seats and then hand them over to others. I accept that the Deputy has tried to overcome that in the context of the amendment. Notwithstanding the Deputy's argument, I have used the exact same phraseology and context concerning the existing disqualifications. I would be loath to create different types of legal disqualification. There is an absolute consistency across the system as to the current disqualifications, given the way the legislation is framed. I am taking that consistency and adding another specific membership. That is why I have difficulty with the Deputy's amendment. Even on a preliminary examination, at this stage I am not sure of the real consequences for the electoral legislation as it stands. If one gives this legal right for someone to stand yet not take their seat, I am not sure how fundamentally this will affect the rest of the electoral system. That is the bigger difficulty I have.
As I have already stated, I was interested in the Deputy's amendment and I am still intrigued by it. I am not naturally against it but the problem I have is that if I go outside the well-established law as currently practised in good standing, by starting to alter layers and create different ones, I may well be open to different challenges from all the other sectors also. They might legitimately put forward similar arguments, so I might then be back into court tests over a whole range of issues, including electoral law. That is where I stand on it. I would like to accommodate the Deputy's amendment and am instinctively inclined towards the principle the Deputy is trying to establish because I do not see any conflict, but the consequences of doing it are unknown. I could point to some consequences, however, that would be serious.
There will be some weeks before Report Stage and I accept that the Minister is not opposing in principle what I am trying to do. I understand he is trying to protect the measure from being vulnerable to challenge. It strikes me that the other categories of people who are prohibited from holding membership of a local authority, or from standing for election to a local authority, are either from the executive wing of Government or Administration, or the judicial wing. I wonder whether one can apply the same prohibition on people standing for election to those who are within the legislative, political or public side of life, as can be applied to people who, because of the separation of functions under the Constitution, can be legitimately excluded, such as judges, gardaí, Army officers, senior civil servants and so on.
Perhaps I could get back to the Deputy on that. While I appreciate what he says, I have no doubt in my mind that, were we to go this road, it would open up the possibility for Ministers, Ministers of State, Cinn Comhairle, MEPs and others to stand for election. There is no question that they would all have to be brought back into the frame on the same basis as Members of the Oireachtas in terms of their ability to stand. If we begin to do that, we will begin to distort matters.
We are all politicians and the objective is to maximise seats in any election, no matter what one's perspective. It might suit a Government to be in a position to put out the Taoiseach and Ministers and have a system——
The poll manager would not allow them to take the seat.
Using poll toppers and winners could well be an advantage because their ability to do certain things could distort the election.
The purpose underlying this legislation is to bring clarity to a local government structure that is separate from a national government structure so that each recognises the relationships between the two but they have their own dynamic and their way of going forward. I want to move away from the overlapping and mixture that occurs at present.
The Deputy made the point about judges, guards and others but I have no doubt that we could not then say to Members of the Oireachtas who happened to be Ministers or Ministers of State that they could not stand for election. They cannot at present, but if we go the road the Deputy suggests, I have no doubt we will end up with what I have said will happen.
I would like time to consider this further before Report Stage. I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve, but I have put forward my arguments as to the dangers in going that road. I will certainly continue to examine it in more detail, if that is satisfactory.
I will withdraw the amendments until Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I set out on Second Stage the reason I oppose the section. It should be part of a major local government reform package. I was also unhappy about the rights of Oireachtas Members in respect of local issues and the people they represent.
I asked at that stage what was the advice of the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the section. I obtained legal advice on it. Article 16.1.1° of the Constitution states:
Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.
The last time that article was contested was the Redmond v. Ireland case, the judgment on which was given some years ago. It related to election deposits and the former position was struck down. I am advised that the article allows for a person placed under disability or incapacity by law being debarred from running or standing. I wonder about the constitutionality of what we propose. Will the Minister make available to members the advice of the Attorney General? There is a precedent for this.
I have answered this question. The Bill, like all legislation, was sent to the Attorney General's office which was directly involved through the parliamentary counsel in drafting the Bill. There is a suggestion in the Deputy's question that there is some detailed legal analysis and so on, but that is not how it happened. The Bill's constitutionality was examined by the Attorney General's office and the drafting was examined in the context of the existing body of legislation. It must make reference to and be cognisant of existing legislation. We arrived at a point, as with all legislation, where the Bill was deemed, as far as the Attorney General's office was concerned, to be constitutional. That is the position. I do not have a body of correspondence with the Attorney General on constitutionality. The officials corresponded on this legislation, as is normal on all legislation.
These are serious constitutional issues and my advice is that there is a stateable case. Has the Attorney General expressed any reservation or doubt?
There would be a stateable case on any legislation the Oireachtas would pass on any day of the week. People are entitled to take a view on it. Where they take a different view, they are entitled to challenge the legislation on constitutional grounds. It is not for me to pre-judge or pre-empt anyone's view in this regard.
I am satisfied with the legislation. I am told it is fine legally and that there is no difficulty in this regard. One never knows what the Supreme Court can do or examine. That is its prerogative on legislation. I am satisfied with this Bill because there is a body of exclusions - Ministers, Ministers of State, the Ceann Comhairle, MEPs - and we have followed that through to Members of the Oireachtas. The European Parliament has decided that, from 2004, a person can no longer be a member of that Parliament and a national parliament. We have a short derogation on that but the effect is more or less the same for Ireland next year. That is not only a national view on this. There is also an international body of work on it.
I am surprised that the Minister seems to say that the only contact with the Attorney General or the only advice he provided on the Bill arose from the general processing of the legislation through the Attorney General's office and the parliamentary counsel.
The issue of the constitutionality of this provision has been raised in two ways. It is well known that at least one Member of the Oireachtas has said he will challenge the legislation if it is enacted and has made a strong case on that. I know my colleague in the other House, Senator Tuffy, made the argument that the Constitution prevents dual membership of the Seanad and the Dáil, that it is the only dual membership that is constitutionally prohibited and, by implication therefore, the Constitution anticipated that there could be dual membership of other public bodies.
Arising from the comments made in the course of the debate when the issue of the constitutionality of this measure has been raised in the Dáil and Seanad, has specific advice been obtained from the Attorney General as to whether the ending of the dual mandate is vulnerable to constitutional challenge? I cannot recall the constitutional issue being raised so assertively in relation to legislation for a very long time. I am surprised to hear the Minister say he has not got the specific opinion of the Attorney General on that and I think we should be told if he has.
My party voted in support of the Bill primarily because of sections 1 and 2, which I support. It is clear that a majority of Members, notwithstanding what Deputy Gilmore said about the Constitution, would prefer to see the separation of Oireachtas Members and local authority members in the way the Minister outlined when explaining the sense of Deputy Gilmore's amendment. I am glad he withdrew the amendment because it would have dulled things a little or given Oireachtas Members a sense of privilege or priority over others who might wish to contest local elections.
We support the Bill and I hope we can get on with the more contentious issues.
My advice is that there is an answerable case. Like Deputy Gilmore, I am amazed that, as there are so many warning signs and so many views expressed inside and outside the House regarding the constitutionality of the provision, the Minister has not, for his own sake, asked the Attorney General to look at this again. If the Minister says he got the Attorney General's advice and the Bill is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court he will have committed a hanging offence, politically. For his own sake, the Minister should publish the advice he has got——
Maybe it was the way I answered the question——
He should publish the advice he has got so that he can clarify the position for all of us. It would be mere advice, by the way. Let us see what the experts are saying in this area.
I did not mean to give a wrong impression. All legislation has two serious tests in the Attorney General's office. One is the test of constitutionality. It is looked at in great detail there and by the parliamentary draftsman. There is quite specific testing regarding constitutionality and there was absolute satisfaction on this. Ironically, the amendments submitted by the Opposition the last time are what I have put into the Bill. There did not seem to be a constitutional question mark then. I am not using this as a justification but it is strange that there were no worries in the context of constitutionality previously. I have adopted the exact legislation as proposed by the Opposition the last time. The question about the constitutionality of the Bill is a red herring. I do not have a legal background. I take the best advice available to me, I have absolute faith in the Attorney General's office and I am quite happy with his advice and with the constitutionality of the Bill. It is consistent with all other legislation. If anyone wishes to test it in the Supreme Court he can do so but I could not see him winning.
What is the reluctance to let us have the Attorney General's advice? There is the precedent of the recent debate about the Shannon issue when the Taoiseach produced the AG's advice in the House. I ask the Minister to let us have sight of the Attorney General's advice between now and Report Stage. We will know our position then.
I could give Deputy Allen the answer to his question. I do not have to look for it. If there is to be a constitutional challenge to this, as others have indicated, I doubt the Attorney General would want to show his hand before he goes into court.
I do not see how there could be a conflict when, on the issue relating to Shannon, the Taoiseach presented the AG's opinion to the House. Is there not a constitutional test there?
The Deputy makes the fair point that all legislation passed on a weekly basis in the Houses of the Oireachtas has come through the AG's office. I am not going to start a precedent on every piece of legislation because someone wants to raise its constitutionality. If they are to be tested there are fora in place to do that.
This Bill is very straightforward and I am happy with its constitutionality. Of course I have gone back to make sure about the issues that have been raised. However, before this Bill was published these questions and issues were discussed in great detail. Nothing new has arisen during the debate with regard to that, except that some want to promote the view that there is a constitutional difficulty. It is their right to do so.
If I look for this advice under freedom of information legislation will I be given it?
As the Deputy well knows, legal advice is disallowed under the Freedom of Information Act.
I did not know that. I am asking the question.
I am sorry. That is the position.
There is an important constitutional issue here. People are being denied their right to sit on local authorities for political reasons. I am asking that the Minister publish the legal advice he has on the issue.
I cannot speak on behalf of the Attorney General. I am well aware of the questions that have been raised during the debate on the Bill. Senator Tuffy put a lot of effort into this question and spoke at great length and in great detail in the Seanad. Senator Tuffy has a legal background and that would confirm to me how she had the capacity to speak as she did. Her contribution was listened to and considered carefully by everyone on the legal side, it fed back into the system and questions were answered.
What is the Minister hiding?
I am not hiding anything.
The Government is supposed to be open and transparent. All we are looking for is the advice on which the Minister is basing his legislation and we are not getting it.
There is a presumption on the part of Deputy Allen that I have received a tome of legal advice. The advice is quite clear. The Bill is constitutional and that is the end of the matter. That is the advice.
Since the Bill was published and the issue of constitutionality was raised - the Minister has acknowledged the case made by Senator Tuffy and by Deputies Ring, Healy-Rea and others - has the Minister sought advice or opinion from the Attorney General in relation to the arguments raised by several Members of the Oireachtas?
I have clarified that point. Those specific arguments were all dealt with before we published the Bill. Nothing new arose in that context during the debate. Obviously, during the course of the legislation through the Seanad and the Dáil, I have sought reassurance that I was correct in that assessment and I have been reassured that I am.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 34, after "member" to insert ", including his or her capacity in affording general representation of and assistance to members of the public".
I am glad the Minister agreed in the Seanad to amend the Bill to make it clear he is making regulations which will allow Members of the Oireachtas access to local authorities in respect of documentation relating to meetings, correspondence and so on. However, I am somewhat concerned about the definition of what is termed "dealing" with the local authority. It is proposed to insert a new section 237A, which states:
In this section 'dealing' in relation to a member of either House of the Oireachtas means a dealing with such a member in his or her capacity as such a member.
I can envisage a county manager interpreting that in a literal sense. For example, if I write to the county manager stating I intend to table a question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government concerning the long delay in approving the redevelopment scheme for the houses in Laurel Avenue in Loughlinstown in my constituency - which incidentally has been a long time outstanding and the Minister might take a look at it when he gets a chance - I can expect a reply from the county manager because I am raising it in my capacity as a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, if I write to the county manager concerning the circumstances of a particular family living in one of those houses and ask that something be done about it or about the condition of the roadway or many of the issues about which we all communicate with the local authorities, I can anticipate the county manager writing back informing me this is not being done in my capacity as a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas and denying me a reply.
I want to make the definition clear and my amendment proposes adding the words, "including his or her capacity in affording general representation of and assistance to members of the public." It should be clear that the capacity of a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas includes making general representations to local authorities. Otherwise a county manager could claim these representations are not in my capacity as a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, which only arises if I raise the matter in the House or a committee or if it relates to a matter that will arise in legislation.
This amendment would add additional text to section 237A(1), which will be inserted into the principal Act. The kernel of section 237A is subsection (2), which provides that a local authority is to conduct its dealings with Oireachtas Members in accordance with regulations made under subsection (3). It is in this context that "dealing" is explained or defined in subsection (1) as a dealing with an Oireachtas Member in his or her capacity as such a Member.
The definition is purely for purposes of clarification so there can be no doubt that, for example, dealings on their own behalf concerning a purely personal matter are not included. The definition in subsection (1) does not set out to list what is the capacity of an Oireachtas Member. This capacity clearly includes all the constitutional and statutory functions of such a Member. It is already well known and widely understood that Members of both Houses carry out a representational role on behalf of local interests and individuals. The Constitution contains a reference to them as public representatives and allowances are available under other legislation to support the carrying out of this representational role.
A Bill such as this has no need to define the concept of the capacity of a Member of the Oireachtas further and any detailed definition would only complicate matters. The proposed amendment seeks to mention specifically the representational role on behalf of the public as an aspect of the capacity of a Member of the Oireachtas. Therefore, there is no need to define the concept in this Bill and I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment. The key requirement of this section is that the regulations to be made under section 237A will address adequately the matter of information provision to Members of the Oireachtas and that local authorities will act accordingly.
I introduced the amendment in the Seanad providing for the regulations in good faith and I ask Deputies to accept it in this light. These regulations were originally guidelines and changed to become statutory regulations. People were surprised I went much further in the Bill in redrafting section 3 entirely. I understand the Deputy's point, but it does not add anything to the Bill. Under the statutory regulations, I will address the points the Deputy mentions. Surprise has been expressed at the details in section 3 of the Bill.
If it is made clear in the regulations, as the Minister has said it will be, I am happy with that. With the strengthening of the management side of local government in recent times we have seen interpretations of legislation in a narrow way. I would be concerned that the capacity of a Member of the Oireachtas would be interpreted in the narrowest possible way. If the regulations clarify that the nuts and bolts, day-to-day representations we all make on behalf of our constituents to local authorities are included, I will be happy.
I welcome that clarification. Although I do not want to convey too much mistrust of the Minister's handling of it, this is a matter that warrants checking. We as public representatives are asked to deal with a considerable number of local authority issues. Even Members who are not members of local authorities receive a considerable number of such representations. It is important we have the capacity to deal with them and this requires the utmost clarity. It is commendable that this was raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 13 are alternatives and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, after line 34, to insert the following:
"(2) Local authorities shall as soon as practicable after they adopt their annual report or accounts, lay a copy thereof before each House of the Oireachtas, and thereupon the report or accounts shall stand referred to such joint committee of the Houses as for the time being deals with matters relating to the environment and local government.".
When the Local Government Act 2001 was going through the Oireachtas, I tabled an amendment to highlight the need for some arrangement whereby the committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas could invite the management of local authorities to come before them in respect of certain matters. For example, I pointed out that uniquely local authorities do not come within the whole range of public bodies whose accounts are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee.
It is strange that, for example, a vocational education committee can be brought before the Public Accounts Committee in respect of some aspect of its accounts whereas a local authority cannot. Given the amount of expenditure and the role that local authorities play in the country's capital programme and in the national development plan, it is extraordinary that the local authority system is effectively immune from the scrutiny of public accounts that is given through the Public Accounts Committee system. Similarly it is standard practice for semi-State and other public bodies to lay their annual reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which enables the appropriate committee to examine that body on its performance.
At the time the argument was made that it was not possible to do that to local authorities because they have their own system of accountability through the membership of local authorities. I entirely respect this and do not wish to undermine it. However, we cannot ignore the fact that local authorities, in addition to performing their local representational function, also have a key role in advancing national policy in the provision of infrastructure, roads, transport, housing, etc. It is extraordinary that the Committee of Public Accounts does not have the power to look at accounts. In the case of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, there would be a difficulty if a local authority refused to attend. In a recent situation regarding illegal dumping in County Wicklow, the county manager and staff of Wicklow County Council agreed to appear before the committee, on which I compliment them. Indeed, they were forthcoming with the committee. However, if a local authority manager refused to attend before the committee, it does not appear that we have the power to require such attendance with a view to questioning regarding matters, possibly of national interest rather than just local interest. This provision would enable the committee to do that.
I disagree with this amendment. We have to make local government stand alone, with powers to enable it to do so. If we submerge the joint committee under some 30 sets of annual accounts from local authorities, that will not only lead to this committee——
There are 114 local authorities.
If we have 114 local authorities submitting annual reports, I am concerned that we will swamp this committee under a plethora of such reports, as well as disenfranchising local government from doing its own job. We must allow local government to stand on its own, with powers and responsibilities. If we are constantly calling local government to heel in the Houses of the Oireachtas, we will seriously disenfranchise it. I do not believe that is the way forward. I favour giving strong powers to local government, with strong local representation. Of course, we need better scrutiny of local government accounts and activities, but that should be done by the local authority members themselves, rather than being called to heel by a committee of the Oireachtas.
I am sorry to disagree with Deputy Gilmore but, for me, this is a point of conviction that local authorities must work effectively, failing which the members of those authorities should have the powers to deal with the situation. We should not disrupt the work of national government in its legislative role. There are constant complaints about the backlog of national legislation. That will become even worse if we submerge national legislators with what I believe to be local government issues.
I have an amendment also along the same lines, though not going quite as far as that of Deputy Gilmore. I believe we should request, or even demand, that local authorities present their annual reports on time - at a minimum, three months after adopting their annual reports - to be lodged in the Oireachtas Library. I have been a member of a local authority for 24 years. I have to say, reluctantly, that I find local authorities most inefficient, on the whole. Developments in recent years have loaded local authorities with significant salary burdens but I have not seen any real improvements. There has to be accountability and I do not believe that factor is sufficiently strong at present. Although health board chiefs have to come before the appropriate committees, we have not got a corresponding situation in terms of local authority managers being accountable for their actions or lack of action.
To suggest that members of local councils will make managers accountable is quite out of touch with reality. There has to be a tightening up on the line of accountability in the quest for greater efficiency and accountability on the part of local authorities. My amendment is a reasonable one. It provides that once the annual report is adopted by a local authority, it would be published quickly and placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I wish to respond to Deputy Cuffe's comments. With respect, I believe his opposition to my amendment is inconsistent with the position I have heard him and the Green Party express on a number of occasions regarding the interface between local authorities, national government and national policy in a number of respects. For example, some local authorities in the periphery of Dublin are seen as not complying with the strategic planning guidelines for Dublin. Deputy Cuffe and the Green Party have criticised some local authorities in that regard. Meath County Council is probably the most prominent example in terms of its county development plan not complying with the strategic planning guidelines. I regard that as an issue which this committee of the Oireachtas, having regard to its responsibility for environmental matters, might wish to discuss with Meath or Kildare County Councils.
Similarly, as I believe Deputy Cuffe will agree, only 30% of the recommendations by Dúchas with regard to listing under the architectural heritage legislation have been implemented by local authorities. That is an issue of national policy we might wish to discuss with local authorities. There are issues relating to the significant expenditure of local authorities regarding the roads programme, for example. Issues have arisen as to how, in some cases, local authorities are managing expenditure on infrastructure. I am aware of the realities in terms of dealing with 114 sets of accounts but there is no question of having 114 local authorities appearing before a committee of the Oireachtas. I would only envisage that happening on exceptional occasions. However, issues may arise regarding accounts and management of local authorities. There has been criticism by the local government auditor as to the management of capital programmes by some local authorities. Those are issues about which we might wish to speak to local authorities. We might wish to have discussions with them as to how they are implementing, or not implementing, certain matters.
In fairness to local authorities, any local council which was asked to come before an Oireachtas committee did so. I recall meetings with councils regarding difficulties in drawing up electoral registers. I have already referred to discussions with Wicklow County Council. I believe Limerick County Council appeared before the Public Accounts Committee regarding a roads issue. I appreciate that there has not been a problem in practice, but the situation should be formalised in the interests of the system. It would be good for local authorities to know that, in certain circumstances, the appropriate committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas would intervene. There is nothing unusual about that. It already applies to vocational education committees, which, arguably, have more autonomy in running their affairs than local authorities. It also applies to semi-State companies with appointed boards. We have the right to bring An Bord Pleanála, an independent body, before an Oireachtas committee.
It is not in any way undermining the authority of members of local authorities or the system of accountability within local authorities to have an arrangement along the lines I have proposed. Given the new situation in which Members of the Oireachtas will not be members of local authorities, some formal arrangement is necessary for an interface between the local authority system and the Houses of the Oireachtas. My amendment would provide for that.
Deputies have raised a number of issues which are separate and I will try to deal with them individually. The first issue, relating to annual reports and accounts, was raised with me in the Seanad in a similar context and I gave it some thought. While it may not be clear as to what I decided to do, my understanding from Members was that I had gone a great deal further than they had anticipated.
What I have decided is that regulations will be made requiring local authorities to submit copies of their annual reports and accounts each year, on adoption, directly to each Oireachtas Member. That is agreed and that is what will happen. Instead of just one copy being laid before the Houses, each Deputy or Senator will be legally entitled to receive them individually. The local authority will have to send a copy of their annual report and accounts to each Oireachtas Member.
Will they receive a copy from every local authority?
From the Member's own local authority. That proposal was welcomed because I went a lot further than the original point. I have also provided that copies will be laid in the Oireachtas Library.
The Deputies raised some other interesting questions. I was glad to hear Deputy Gilmore's point because the experience appears to be that county managers who have been requested to come before committees have come in. Listening to the arguments made, it strikes me that the historic value of an annual report and accounts is not an issue for a committee such as this. Members would want to raise more strategic issues that are current in local authorities and not call them in to go over the accounts. It is not so much the issue of the accounts, although I understand Members are generally happy that is the way to do it.
Deputies raised other issues. Until now, my understanding has been that managers invited in by a committee have come in and there is no problem with that. On strategic issues, which is the point being made by everybody, they are very helpful——
They have always been very helpful.
——and I do not see any difficulty in that regard. These are some of the issues we will begin to tease out over the next few months. Given that there is now this change, we all have different ideas on the future relationship between the Oireachtas, i.e. the governmental system and the local governmental system, and perhaps some issues feed into that. I am not sure that it is necessarily the Oireachtas which needs to do the scrutiny. Perhaps committees of councils is another way to do it but the Deputy is right when he said much of the money comes from central Government. There is a direct relationship, therefore, between the departmental systems and the funding being disbursed. We can tease that out and I am very open to that.
I have dealt with the specific question on the reports, etc. Members are happy that each local authority will have to send a copy of the annual report and accounts not just to the Oireachtas but to each individual Member.
The other issues will come out over the next 12 months when we get to dealing with the reform Bill. I would prefer to leave it at that rather than try to include it in this legislation. I am not convinced that it is the best way to proceed. The situation that pertains currently is working very well but there are some consequential issues that will arise down the road.
When will the reform Bill be published?
I am trying to decide on how I might go forward with that but I am extremely anxious to get something going within the next 12 months. I am considering, with colleagues in the House, the possibility of some type of steering committee. I am very open on this question. Good ideas are coming forward. I do not pretend that I possess them all but if we are serious about the process, and there appears to be the will to do it, I hope we will do it within 12 months. That does not mean we will start work immediately but some time towards the end of next year we might come forward with some proposal. There are different levels and I am trying to decide the best mechanism which will be the most transparent but equally I do not want to set up talking shops. I want to drive a serious agenda and put all the issues fairly and openly on the table. I will have expert advice which will be drawn nationally and internationally, and some from the local government system also, to feed into all the issues, particularly on the whole finance side.
Am I correct in saying the group the Minister has set up to examine local government financing will not report until late 2004?
I do not know. The public procurement process is now going out to tender. The detail is now finalised to do that. People might suggest that because the local elections will take place next year the instinct would be not to have something out but I am not looking at it in those terms. The sooner they can get something to me, the better and the sooner I can get it out and get the discussion moving forward the better, but it will take approximately 12 months in any reasonable timeframe to examine the issue nationally and internationally.
On that point, in relation to the consultation and discussions which will lead to new local government reform legislation, would the Minister look favourably on the suggestion made by the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland that a local government forum should be established which would involve the practitioners in local government, namely, local government representatives, representative bodies, managers and perhaps the trade unions representing staff in local authorities? One of the problems with the process of local government reform is that we have had expert groups which produced expert reports. We are not short of them.
We are not instinctively wedded to that process, as the Deputy knows well.
Yes. There is a sense in the local government system, particularly among members of local authorities, that the people who know and work the system are those who have views on how it can be improved, and that that should be harnessed. I was very attracted to the proposal made by the president of the AMAI, Councillor Patricia McCarthy, at its annual conference some months ago that a forum on local government reform be established which would be used as a vehicle to involve all the different participants.
I am aware of that proposal, which I am examining, and I am very open to it. To be honest, I have a healthy antipathy to consultants and more reports and I am on record in that regard. Specifically regarding financing I need some technical external specifics on a number of issues and I am happy enough with that.
In the context of what the Deputy said, it is an interesting idea. All I am trying to do is find a mechanism, forum or group of people which is inclusive rather than exclusive. I agree we need practitioners involved both from the executive and the public life side. I am considering all of that. It is an issue I am open to discussing with my Front Bench colleagues, and colleagues here, to see how we might progress it. I will return to members with my own views on that as soon as possible. I would like to have discussions on it before the summer and I am open to that. My only agenda is to try to find the best mechanism that might give us the best outcome.
What will be the status of the requirement on county managers to send out their annual reports? Does the Minister have a regulation on that pending the reform Bill? How secure is that because if the Minister is moved to the Department of Finance in a few months——
At least it would be in the right direction.
I am trying to keep him happy. If the Minister is moved on to the Department of Finance in a few months and a new Minister comes in——
The Minister for Finance will be shaking in his boots if he is listening to this.
No. That regulation is on the public record. It is the logical way to proceed anyway.
Attempts have been made to reform local government several times over the past number of years but will it be root and branch reform involving an examination of models of local government internationally? Is it time for a new system of local government that would extend in tiers even greater than is currently the case? Is the Minister disposed to that type of wide-ranging reform?
I want to raise another issue on section 3. I propose to bring forward an amendment which will seek to repeal Part 21 of the principal Act, that is, consequential provisions on failure to perform functions. This part completely undermines the democratic process and is used by Departments to whip local councillors into place, particularly in relation to issues such as service charges. This is unfair.
This is not related to section 3.
It is related to section 3. We will leave it until the amendment comes up, but I wanted to refer to it.
In view of the Minister's assertion that the regulations will effectively include the substance of the amendment, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 5, after "regulations" to insert "which regulations shall be published before this Bill is enacted".
The Minister said a few moments ago that the regulations had been completed. It would be very helpful for us to see these regulations before Report Stage.
I did not actually say they were completed. The difficulty is that one obviously wants to complete the debate before finalising them. However, as this Bill has gone through both Houses and issues have come up I have been able put on the record, if I agree with something, that I will do it. This all started with the original guidelines, which people felt should be given the force of law. The amendment causes a chicken-and-egg position. There is no enabling power to make regulations until after the Bill is enacted.
I have five more amendments down for this stage; Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14. If the Minister indicates that he will look at these reasonably when he is formulating his regulations, we can cut much of the talk out. I will withdraw No. 5 and we will deal with the others as we come to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 14 are related to No. 6 and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 12, after "House" to insert "at the same time as to members of the local authority".
I received a letter from the Chairman before the meeting started. I know we are not discussing amendments Nos. 10 to 12, but many of my amendments were introduced because of my fear that as Oireachtas Members we would be unable to represent our constituents adequately in issues that were local but had national implications. I now find that the Dáil has the power to order its business in relation to the issues dealt with in amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. If the Minister gives me an assurance that amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 will be considered by him in a reasonable manner when he is making his regulations, I will wait until Report Stage to introduce them.
I do not want to mislead the Deputy. Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 contain timeframes. I have thought about this and have had some discussion informally with people around the House on these issues. What I do not want to do, either in law or in regulation, is to put so much in that the Act becomes a book that dictates what I can do to such an extent that I cannot do anything that is not in it. That would be a dangerous road to go down. The suggested time of 21 days could be meaningless if any sort of thing counted as a reply, such as "Thank you very much and good luck." I do not want to go down the road of time specifics in that way. I do not think it actually means anything in practice.
To take No. 6, for example, does the Minister think it reasonable that documentation going out to members of the local authority should go out at the same time——
Yes. I have no difficulty with that.
I had a bad experience as Minister of State in the Minister's own Department, when a local authority in my own constituency refused to send the agendas and reports of meetings to me. This went on for months, just because some smart alec there decided to be awkward.
I concur with the Deputy. I have a serious problem at the moment, as the Deputy might have noticed, just at a different level. It confirms the position in which we all find ourselves: decisions are being made in Europe by the Commission and communicated to the media in Brussels or to certain individuals before anything arrives either to me or my Department, so I find myself on the back foot trying to respond to a decision announced through a press release before any formal communication arrives. I find that very difficult and it is wrong.
Does that happen usually?
No, I discovered it when Deputy Gilmore raised a particular issue on the Order of Business one morning. When I checked, I found that it can be up to a week before a formal communication of a decision comes to me. I am supposed to defend it before I even know what it is.
The Commission probably feels the same way about the Minister.
Amendment No. 6 is reasonable. If the Minister will give me an assurance that he will reflect it in his regulations, I will withdraw it.
I have no problem with that. I will deal with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 15, after "information" to insert "within 21 days of request, or simultaneously with information circulated to members of the local authority, whichever is the sooner".
I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to time limits.
It would be very dangerous for Members if I put it in. The consensus is it would be a very foolish thing to do.
That is fair enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
(i) the making available to Members of the Oireachtas the facility of prior notice on planning applications relevant to the constituency for which they are elected,".
I refer in passing to amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12, which were ruled out of order. It is a comfort to know, as detailed in the letter the Chairman sent me this morning, that this was because these are matters for the House. It is a comfort to know that the House can order its business in such a way as to allow for the provisions in amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and I hope we can work together to assert our rights to raise issues related to local authorities in parliamentary questions and on the Adjournment and that the Seanad can order its business to deal with issues relating to local authority matters that might have a national impact.
Amendment No. 14 deals with something that was brought to my attention by DeputyMcCormack. I spent 24 years on a local authority, as I said earlier, and I never knew that if we requested prior notice of a planning decision, we had a statutory right to be informed of the decision before it was sent to the applicant. I was never aware of that and I believe that it is a right that many Members of the Oireachtas would wish to retain. That is why I have introduced this amendment.
Under the planning regulations, there is a facility for wide public access to information on planning applications. This includes publication of the lists of the applications, access to documentation on file and notification of decisions. Article 27(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 specifically requires that local authorities make available a list of all planning applications received each week and that this should be available for inspection at local authority offices. Such a list must be made available to the members of the planning authority in such a manner as they may direct by resolution. Similar arrangements apply as regards a list of planning decisions. I will consider providing for suitable equivalent arrangements in the case of Oireachtas Members. There seems to be no reason that such lists should not be e-mailed to Oireachtas Members.
The pre-planning phase of decisions is a different matter and there would be no legal basis for me to go down that road. I have, however, substantially tried to achieve what the Deputy asked for.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Is the Minister making a special arrangement for Members of the Seanad in respect of contact with the local government system so they might attend local authority conferences? Does he intend to make a special payment to them to enable them to attend conferences organised by or for local authority members?
I am concerned about bringing the intention to grant planning permission before Members of the Oireachtas. The role of the local authority member is to prepare a development plan every five years and provide the vision and leadership to plan five years ahead rather than deal with the minutiae of day to day planning decisions. If we want to take on board that function we should follow the British model and give local councillors the ability to decide on planning applications. I do not, however, believe that the national Parliament should be engaged with the day to day making of planning decisions or should concern itself with individual planning applications.
There was no suggestion of that. I have said to many Senators that it is not my place to tell any organisation in this State, such as the General Council of County Councils or LAMA, whom it should invite to its conference. I recognise, however, that in the context of Senators dealing with their local authorities, their current electorate, there is no mechanism for them outside of their normal salary and expenses to attend conferences. The position is unlike that of Deputies who receive some financial assistance for work within their constituencies. I felt they were making a legitimate point. I equally stated that I could not say a Senator would get €X to go to a conference, but there may be general recognition of the role of Senators in carrying out their functions and their relationship with local authorities. Deputies receive constituency allowances and travel allowances so there must be some recognition for Senators. It is, however, a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Nobody with any sense wants to get involved in planning matters. I represent an area that includes a substantial tranche of land categorised as being of outstanding natural beauty and high scenic amenity. Sometimes planning officials read into a county development plan considerably more than it contains. There can be an instinct on the part of some planning officials to be restrictive in such areas. Our constituents need representation and it is critical that we can make a case for them. We should stand up for those who want to build one-off housing in the countryside.
We take reassurance from the Minister that he will take into consideration the views expressed in amendment No. 14. I always differentiate between my role as a public representative and whatever else I do.
I have made clear what I will do.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
There is an opportunity here to repeal section 4 of the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001, which gives the duty and authority of drawing up a waste management plan to county managers. That was a significant diminution of local authority powers.
The Protection of the Environment Bill will be before the Dáil shortly and it will deal with this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I thank the Minister for responding to this issue, which I have raised on a number of occasions. The Planning and Development Act, as it was originally, put the threshold for social and affordable housing provision at 0.2 hectares, which meant that many developments, particularly apartments, were effectively exempted from it. There were examples of this in my constituency, including one that was in a designated urban renewal area where there were significant tax advantages to the developer. Due to the fact that the site was less than 0.2 hectares, the council could not apply the social and affordable housing provision. It should be reduced and I am satisfied that the Minister has responded positively.
I thank Deputy Gilmore. I try to remain open to good ideas and this was an important issue with a beneficial effect.
Under the Planning and Development Act, the county manager is entitled to make planning levies on people. In County Louth the system has been grossly abused. A young couple seeking permission to build their own home face a levy in excess of €3,200. That is in additional to sewerage and water connection charges. It should be limited because it is being used to fund local government unjustly.
It is the members who impose the levy.
There is provision for them to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"(e) procedures for full voting opportunities to polling station staff,”.
Does the Minister plan to improve the position of polling station staff by way of regulation and to facilitate them in exercising their rights?
As it stands, electoral law provides that a person employed by a returning officer who is registered to vote in a constituency at a polling station, other than the one in which he or she is employed, may be authorised to vote in any other polling station in the constituency. Where the person employed by the returning officer is registered to vote in a constituency other than the one where he or she is employed the person may apply for entry on the supplement to the postal voters list for the area where they are ordinarily resident. I am satisfied these arrangements meet the needs of those involved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, and amendment No. 25 are related and are to be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 6, to delete line 26.
This is the section which caused the Labour Party to oppose the Bill on Second Stage because we oppose the abolition of the provision for the direct election of city and county mayors. When the Minister's predecessor first presented his proposals for the reform of local government, the introduction of directly elected mayors and abolition of the dual mandate were really two parts of the same concept. When the 2001 Act was before the House, I was concerned and argued that the powers given to directly elected mayors were very weak and forced the issue to a division on both Committee and Report Stages.
What has happened to local government in recent years is that many of the powers of elected members have been shifted to managers. As the Minister said, we can revisit that during the debate on the environment Bill. Apart from that legislative shift, there has also been a shift in real terms which has been contributed to by strengthening of the management side of local government. On every local authority, in addition to the manager, there are five or six directors of services and, due to the various promotional arrangements negotiated by local authority trade unions, a big increase in the numbers of senior staff in local government.
Representatives of the chambers of commerce came before the committee yesterday and said that in 1999-2000 there was a 1.5% increase in local government staff, the following year it was 2% to 3% and for the following two years it has been 6%. I welcome local government having more staff, but there has been a huge increase in managers, which has strengthened the management side apart from the legislative provisions.
With the abolition of the dual mandate, there will be no full-time politicians in local authorities. There will be a strengthened full-time tier of management and exclusively part-time membership. Directly elected city and county mayors would have strengthened the elected side of local government and would have provided at least one full-time elected person who would probably be doing no more than riding shotgun on the manager. However, the operational dynamic has shifted so dramatically to the management side that this would have been a very important strengthening of the democratic side of local government. I regret this has been removed. It was wrong to do so and the Minister should reconsider the position. I suspect it happened for political reasons and also I suspect that a political assessment has been made by the Minister's party. In 2001, that party was high in the polls and it looked as if there would be a Fianna Fail city and county mayor everywhere. It looks different now, so we have a different decision. It is absolutely inconsistent with what the Government has been saying about local government, unless it has been done purely for electoral reasons.
I made a strong case to retain the direct election of city and county mayors and that it should go ahead in 2004, which will be important for the elections themselves. With the shift in powers to managers, increasing numbers of people are wondering if voting in the local elections makes a difference. If nothing else, the election of city and county mayors would generate an interest and excitement in the local elections which would increase the turnout and strengthen the elected side in local government. I expect there will be all sorts of teething problems and tensions, but that is in the nature of any new initiative. This would add another pillar to local government and it would be a positive development. We should stay with it and drop the provision removing the election of city and county mayors.
I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Gilmore. The removal of this provision represents the filleting of a very important Bill and I am bitterly disappointed by the proposal. I am obviously pleased by the removal of the dual mandate but the Bill has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. Of what is the Minister afraid? It is a core principle for my party that local government should be given powers and responsibilities. One need only look at Berlin or Boston, both of which have good models of working democracy and strong local government. We should consider the work done by people such as Rudolph Giuliani in New York or PascalMaragall in Barcelona. The latter brought the Olympics to Barcelona. Denying counties and cities the right to directly elect their chief executives - their mayors - is attacking the heart of democracy and stifling local initiatives at city and county levels. I am bitterly disappointed by this decision.
At present, if one wants a decision at a local level one has to go to the Minister. To build a house a local authority has to go to Ballina or the Custom House. There is a stranglehold coming from the Minister's Department and officials - coming from above - denying local government the chance to have a real impact. The chance to develop policy in towns or counties is an incredible opportunity the Minister is nipping in the bud with this change in the legislation. He is subscribing to the una duce una voce school, saying he will call the shots along with his Cabinet colleagues rather than allowing local government to be empowered, as is traditional abroad. We have seen it most recently in London, with Ken Livingstone using the limited powers he has to make a difference. Nobody in Dublin, Galway or Limerick can make that difference because they do not have the powers. It is just a glorified position with a ceremonial chain and very few powers. I am bitterly disappointed that the Minister is filleting what had the capacity to be an incredible feat of empowering local communities. Along with many of my colleagues, I will oppose the filleting of a good Bill.
I am concerned that when we come to the local elections in 2004, we will have a very low turnout because people now realise that the powers of local authorities are being eroded on a monthly basis. We will discuss the Protection of the Environment Bill shortly and we will again see the power of councillors eroded with managers being given the power to raise charges. I presume the Minister has done that for very basic reasons, namely, that he is short-changing local authorities in terms of funding and he knows members will not impose charges in the run up to elections so he has given those powers to the managers. Basically, managers will be doing the work of the Minister in screwing the public for the charges to make up for the shortfall that is coming from the Department. The people are not fools and they see that local authority members have very limited powers. It is against this background of ongoing erosion of powers that there will be a very low turnout in next year's local elections.
What has forced the Government to change its mind on directly elected mayors in just 18 months? This exciting concept was introduced with a fanfare as something that would give new life to local authorities and their leadership. Suddenly everything changed and changed utterly. Like the other speakers, I believe a properly thought out policy on directly elected mayors would have brought great benefits to the whole local government system.
As I outlined in detail on Second Stage, it would have made the leadership and the elected members of local authorities more accountable to the people, would have made local authorities more accessible and visible and would have brought a modern governmental approach to city business. It would have given a stable leadership over a five-year term. Candidates running for the mayoralty would have had to bring forward policy ideas on local issues and local government reform and would have been seen as a focal point and a voice for the people over a five-year term.
Deputy Cuffe has given examples. I thought he had forgotten about Ken Livingstone for a while, but he eventually referred to him. Such a leader would represent his or her city internationally and most importantly would be independent and not subject to the diktats of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and its Minister. Naturally enough, managers are basically there to implement the policy that comes from the Custom House. A directly elected mayor would represent the people and be accountable and, as a result, they would steer an independent course.
I am extremely disappointed that this proposal has been removed. At a minimum, I thought the Minister would test the waters in the lord mayoralties of Dublin and Cork and see this system operate in two areas. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and let direct elections take place.
I agree with the three previous speakers. It was with a heavy heart that I voted in favour of the Bill on Second Stage, particularly in light of the provisions of this section. I am totally in favour of ending the dual mandate, but this section is causing very serious problems not just for me but also for my party colleagues. When I first became a member of a local authority in 1999, the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, said he would strengthen local government and devolve more powers to local authorities. We have heard similar comments about giving more autonomy to local government from the Minister when he assumed office last year. However, in this section we see the complete opposite happening.
A directly elected mayor or chair would have given people the accountability they want. Mayors would have face the people every five years on the basis of their records. Unfortunately, that is not the case at present because in that position is an unelected autocratic county manager. As Deputy Allen said, these county managers are, in the main, just implementing the policy emanating from the Custom House. However, they are taking no cognisance of the nature of the area or its people.
This was adequately covered by Deputy Cuffe in highlighting how mayors in places like Barcelona and Mr. Giuliani in New York had been very creative. That could have happened here and would have been a powerful asset, not just to the big cities but also to towns and counties. It is very unfortunate that this opportunity will be lost with this section of the Bill. Far from strengthening local authorities, it is doing the complete opposite in gutting them. It is most unfortunate that the big arsenal of powers remains with county managers and the accountability element is missing. I support these amendments, which seek to delete the section.
I genuinely welcome debate on this issue, into which, based on the contributions of Members not just today but also on Second Stage, many other issues have fed. In answer to Deputy Allen, if I have changed my mind, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have also gone in the opposite direction. Leaving aside the politics if the matter, there are a number of key points to which I gave consideration. If I was to make legislation on the basis of opinion polls, I would be very foolish because those polls are like anything else in life and can go up and down unpredictably. That would be a ridiculous approach. Although I do not like the idea of detaching a mayor in the context of the council, it is an arguable point.
The move by the former Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to allow for directly elected mayors was good, provided all the other elements were brought to bear at the same time in legislation. I accept what Deputy Gilmore has said. The balance has swung very much in favour of the executive. I can be accused of being in a very contradictory position myself on other legislation at present. However, any Deputy who faced the problem I face as Minister would probably do the same thing, because it is quite specific. I do not like doing it, but I feel I have no choice.
It was the backbenchers that were doing that.
No, I am talking about the other legislation. Deputy Cuffe referred to New York and Barcelona. Leaving aside the scale of such cities, let us remember that when the mayor of New York is elected he fires the police chief and hires his own. He does the same in respect of the fire chief and he hires and fires about 10,000 civil servants. I am not sure how well it would work in Ireland if a directly elected mayor of Cork was to have the right to fire all the civil servants and appoint his own people. However, that is what happens and the system works on the basis of the loyalty of the people to implement the mayor's policy. We have nothing approaching this. It would be wrong to create a titular head.
I did not mention New York.
I know Deputy Allen did not mention it. I was referring to the comments of Deputy Cuffe. It would be wrong to create a titular head with no power. The city manager has all the power and has no relationship with the council as he or she is not a member. All of the power in the way the law is structured now rests on the executive side.
Regarding Deputy Morgan's point, I have heard this in all the debates. I do not know if we have good or bad councillors but from the debates none of them seems able to hold their managers to account. To suggest managers are getting away with actions which are detrimental to their areas is the fault of councillors; if councillors are not holding their managers accountable that is not my fault. There are many regulations holding managers to account.
These suggestions are unfair. Many managers work with their councillors and try to do the best for their areas. In principle we need to shift the balance and, coming out of this debate and the ending of the dual mandate, I am invigorated and excited by this. I hope that between us and outside assistance we receive we can reform this system going forward for the rest of the century, even if "reform" must be one of the most abused words in politics. Perhaps it is possible for a previously elected councillor being elected mayor for five years through the council system; there are all sorts of options in the system. However, one has to have a basis for giving someone a real job as opposed to a title - real control and the power to make changes as well as the ability to control the executive system. Simply naming them mayor for five years with no power to do anything for the five years——
Is the Minister saying his predecessor introduced a gimmick?
No, I am not. The principle of what he was doing was a process but we have not reached the point where the other side of the equation is in place.
There was no follow through.
No. There was a lot of follow-through.
Everyone uses the example of Ken Livingstone as mayor of London. He is not the mayor of London. That office still exists, with all the pomp and ceremony and the mayor would not cross the road to see Ken Livingstone. They are always fighting. Ken Livingstone is a sort of pseudo-Government layer of operation put in place by Government for London. That is not what we see mayors or councils as doing. He is almost like a Government Minister without portfolio put in charge of a city of 12 million people.
Is that what the Minister is afraid of?
No, I am not.
He does not toe the line.
Good luck to him and to his congestion charges. I do not have a problem with him but I do not use him as an example suddenly switched in from New York or Barcelona like Deputy Cuffe did. Let us get real.
Any town or city in mainland Europe——
The big problem in Ireland, and one we need to debate, is that we have 114 separate local authorities for less than 4 million people and 84 planning authorities. These are severe problems.
I detect severe rationalisation.
No, I am just posing this question. People often ask me what is slowing down their planning applications. There are real issues as we move from a 19th century country to the dynamic 21st century, with technology and so on. There are interesting debates to take place in this context and much of what we have discussed today feeds into a wider debate about local government.
If there is one issue that unites everyone on this Bill it is that of directly elected chairs. Sinn Féin and Deputy Ó Caoláin have taken a different view and I accept that - perhaps that party was not included on this - but the General Council of County Councils was vociferous about this and walking around the Dáil the general views of the vast majority of Members also became clear. I did not do this for that reason, however; I did so because, if the structure exists, the mayor should be elected by the people as they are, among the members of the council. The council should have the right to choose. It would be wrong to say one can be elected to a council but cannot aspire to become mayor of one's city as an elected member. That is wrong under the present circumstances. If one wants to get into changing the structures, the electoral system and the format of local government, those are different issues. As things stand, this is the right decision politically, across the spectrum, though some Members may have changed their minds as I did. Politically I accept there is an issue here——
The Minister said "deferred". In principle——
As things stand this was a bad decision and the wrong way to go and that is why I am changing it. I am withdrawing it and that is the end of it and we are going with the dual mandate. I am responding to the arguments and giving a context.
It is simplistic to say one can overlay Barcelona or New York on Dublin or Cork. The systems of central and local government are radically different and it is the same for European countries. If we get the level of maturity required to be serious about local government and finance then there is a real chance for local government. If we do not do so, Deputies will continue to talk about Denmark and Spain and local swimming pools and so on. I have been there and know them well. However, nobody wants to deal with the other side of the equation. What they do not say is that such places have significant local taxation regimes. Houses in Denmark each pay €5,000 to €6,000 per household per year. That is why they have these facilities and why there is autonomy and decision making at local level. We would all accept that without control of money one does not have power; whoever holds the money holds the power in all walks of life. That is the maturity we have to bring into the local government debate.
We now have one of the lowest central personal tax rates in Europe. Personal tax in Denmark is high compared to what we pay, and yet they have massive local taxation as well. We need a maturity that is not there but which may emerge if we want to do exciting things with local government.
It sounds like a return to the 1970s.
We had it but you took it away in 1977.
I agree. It was a terrible mistake. I have always said that.
I appreciate that.
The Minister said yesterday that Fine Gael and the Labour Party had changed their positions on directly elected mayors. Deputy Allen can speak for Fine Gael.
When the 2001 Act was before the House we did our job. We put the Government's proposal to the test and tested its arguments. That is the job of the Opposition. The reason we opposed the specific proposal then was not because we opposed the concept. It was because what was proposed was a mayoral system which did not have the powers and functions we wanted it to have. We are not talking about New York, Barcelona or London, where a mayor has executive authority. The argument we put at the time was that directly elected mayors should have executive authority, although the extent of that power would have to be examined. The original concept, going back to Deputy Noel Dempsey's time as Minister, was that there would be co-decisions between mayors and managers. That was dropped when the Bill was introduced and we ended up with the mayors having some kind of review function. We made the criticism at the time and it is unfair of the Minister to represent that as being opposed to the principle of what was being done.
What about the Deputy's colleagues?
The intention of the 2001 Act was that in 2004 we would have directly elected mayors, not in 114 local authorities but only in some 34 of them. It was not intended to apply everywhere. The mayors' positions would be full-time and they would have the right to review certain decisions and so on. A remit was set out for them.
The management side of local authorities has been enormously strengthened since the discussion about directly elected mayors began. In my local authority there are as many senior managers as there are members of the council and I am sure that is replicated in other councils. The managers function as a team and they are full-time. I have great respect for their ability, commitment and integrity. It is good that there is tension between the executive and the representational side of local government. It is a healthy thing. The problem in practice is that where one has in excess of 20 managers who are full-time and who function as a team - as one would expect them to function - they drive the entire system. One cannot have an adequate system of accountability. The current balance is wrong. With members of the Oireachtas being taken out of the equation the result will be a full-time, highly staffed and highly resourced executive with a representational side which is part-time, many of whose functions are taken away but who in theory have all kinds of policy making functions. A local authority may pass a motion that it is a nuclear-free zone but if a proposal for an incinerator comes in it has no say in the matter because it is now a decision for the manager. It is a total mis-match.
Directly elected mayors will provide an additional leg to the elected side which would stimulate the local elections. I agree with Deputy Allen that there will be a high degree of disinterest in the next local elections because of the perception that the powers have shifted so much to the management side. While it may be neat, it is bad for democracy. I noted what the Minister said about the number of local authorities. I can see where his thinking is heading and I do not like it. There is a big difference between having a system of local administration, which is the direction in which we are heading and having a system of local government in which the people are involved.
Deputy Shortall said yesterday that there should be a maximum of five local authorities in the entire country.
I did not hear that.
The Deputy can haul her over the coals.
I will reserve my judgment on that until I read the 'Blacks'. That may not be what she said. I will reserve judgment until I see what was said. Where the Minister is heading——
I am posing questions. I am genuinely not heading in any fixed way. I am throwing out legitimate questions which need to be properly debated.
The Minister will reduce the debate if he takes out of the equation some of those who can contribute to the debate. One value of having the county mayors is that it gives an additional leg to the elected side. It is a full-time elected person in each local authority who will be elected by the people in an environment where there are in excess of 20 full-time senior managers with no full-time elected person in local government.
I want local government——
A mayor is also somebody who will ride shotgun on the manager which is desirable. It is also important that an elected representative draws his or her mandate from the entire county or city. One of the problems with local government is the tendency for people to look after their particular patch without seeing the bigger city or county picture. I am aware that the Minister has views on "NIMBYism" and so on. It would contribute to better decision making within local authorities. This is going the wrong way.
As Deputy Allen said, it would be better if one decided to run the mayoral elections in a number of local authorities rather than to drop it altogether. I have the height of respect for the General Council of County Councils, LAMA and the AMAI but in every walk of life representative bodies tend towards the closed shop. It is in the nature of things. Professional bodies do it - everybody does it. It is their function to represent the feelings of their members but it does not necessarily follow that Government has to do it.
I accept that.
It is also wrong of the Minister to say that members of local authorities are somehow precluded from being mayors. They are not. A member of a local authority could stand for the position of city and county mayor under the existing legislation
I did not say that.
I know there is a fear in regard to high profile celebrity candidates but I think that is greatly exaggerated.
So do I.
The public are capable of seeing through some millionaire in a T-shirt singing about poverty.
They would be well able to know the difference.
The Minister's criticism is somewhat misplaced. I used the big city examples because we are familiar with the characters.
I was not being critical. I said the analogy did not stand up.
Even if one looks at smaller cities and towns on either side of the Atlantic there are good working models of mayors who are elected with a programme and a mandate to deliver over five years. They can be thrown out after five years if people do not like what they do. Neither do I believe in the hiring and firing of thousands of civil servants at the end of a programme.
That is how it is done——
Not on the European side.
Yes, in the key staff areas they do.
Yes, at the upper echelons. I would be happy to get rid of the head of health, housing or policing if people do not like what they have delivered. It should not be a case of getting rid of 5,000 gardaí if one does not like what they do, the chief superintendent or the Commissioner of the force should have to go. The 20 key people to which Deputy Gilmore referred earlier have got to deliver along with the mayor's programme. I do not want to get stuck in the detail of that. I support the principle of those who are represented by the people for the people to deliver a programme within a given timeframe. They have put that programme before the people.
Things are very clouded in local government at the present and a low turnout is highly possible in next year's local elections. People do not believe local government can deliver. It is not possible for a local councillor to move a bus stop. If one tries to build a house one has to go to the Custom House. Almost any simple issue at local level has to spend many months in the pipeline in order to be delivered. If we gave a little more clout to local government we could achieve far more in a much shorter timeframe. I appeal to the Minister to try this with one or two cities or towns to see how it works over a period. I would be disappointed if this were taken out altogether because even in the smaller towns and cities whether it be in northern Europe, southern Europe or the United States there is a good principle of locally elected chief executives or mayors that deliver programmes and are held accountable to the electorate.
The Fianna Fáil backbenchers are rascals for putting the poor old Minister is such an invidious position. His contribution did not sound convincing. I think I know where his heart is——
I appreciate the polite term the Deputy used in describing us.
It was a term of endearment.
It was not intended to be a term of endearment. I agree with the Minister that there are too many councillors who are not prepared to stand up to county managers or take them on because the manager is perceived to have all the power and they are afraid they will not have the potholes in their lanes filled etc. This is unfortunate.
Section 149 (1)(a) of the main Act, specifically says “including all functions in relation to employees in each of the local authority”. This was for directly elected mayors and it included the hiring and firing of staff. I will seek to amend this to exclude this function from them at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately I cannot do it at this stage.
I think I am fair in interpreting what the Minister said about the proposals in the 2001 Act being premature. He made the case that there were no structures in place to see this through and that it is now being deferred until more comprehensive reforms are introduced. The Minister seemed to imply that there is a need for massive rationalisation in the number of local authorities and that we are going back to the pre-1977 norm where we will see the return of domestic rates and other local charges that are in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what is already in place.
I thought the Minister would agree, at least on a pilot basis, to run the elections in the cities of Dublin and Cork and test the waters and then introduce real reform by giving mayors executive functions and designating the powers of local managers to people in the position of director in chief. As Deputy Gilmore has said, the pendulum has swung the other way. It is professionals versus amateurs at this stage. The full-time team meet each Tuesday morning and plan for the next meeting of the council to outmanoeuvre and out-think the public representatives who are predominantly part-timers. The councillors are outmanoeuvred and do not have a real input. What has happened with recent legislation and will happen with legislation to come is pushing the pendulum to the extreme.
In my short experience on a local authority I have noted a huge imbalance in the area of county and city development plans. Representatives are depending on partial advice from managers and planners on their view of how a city or county should develop. There should be a mechanism whereby assistance is given to councillors to get independent advice. This is something we really have to address. The manager and his planning officials decide on and present a county development plan and explain it. Public representatives are largely part-time and do not have the support to have the plan independently verified or get a view from outside the council. While I am not an expert in city development or planning, I have views I would like to express. There does not seem to be sufficient support for councillors to critically analyse what is presented by planners and the county manager. It only happens once every five years and councillors should be able to access independent advice.
I welcome what Members have said. My difficulty is that by engaging with colleagues and giving a view, it can gain currency and be suggested that this is what I am going to do. This is not what I intend. I am simply outlining issues that we need to discuss. I am not sure what all the solutions to these issues are and do not pretend to have them. It demands that we begin to seriously engage with them and we should leave the outcomes to our collective wisdom. I do not have specific position on a number of issues.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore as he backs up the point I have been making. I firmly believe that we need full-time local government representatives for many reasons, some of which overlap with the specific points he raised. That is the mechanism that can force many of the other changes in the balance between the executive and public representatives, resourcing etc. I remember the limited facilities Deputies had when I was first elected to the Dáil and it is like comparing chalk and cheese to what we have now. I feel Deputies should have more researchers etc.
The intention of the SPC system was that it would become a mini-cabinet. The members have never really exercised the powers of the SPCs, particularly when it comes to the budgetary process. The manager was supposed to be brought before this sub-cabinet that was empowered to drive the process. This has not happened. The fault does not lie on one side only. I am reviewing the SPC system. Many questions have been asked about where we will go with it. The IPA and others are involved in looking at this issue. I want to see an ability to drive and shape agendas, to have the ability to question and secure outcomes. While that was the principle of the chairs of the SPCs as the mini-cabinet, it has not worked in any real sense. The budgetary process of a local authority was empowered through the SPC system.
I do not want to prolong the argument. I am not inclined to accept the amendments and will not change my mind on this issue.
The SPCs and corporate policy groups are not working because there are no full-time mayors and there is no one to convene these groups. The county manager will not convene the CPG to weaken his authority. We are not going to agree on this. The Minister is dropping this for political reasons. He has offered no reasons, in local government terms, for doing so. This is a political decision to which the only appropriate response is a political one. Accordingly, I wish to put the amendment to a vote.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Ring, Michael.
Níl
- Brady, Martin.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Moloney, John.
- Power, Seán.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 6, line 27, to delete paragraph (a).
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 6, line 28, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 6, line 29, to delete paragraph (c).
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 6, line 30, to delete paragraph (d).
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
8.-(1) This Act may be cited as the Local Government (No. 2) Act 2003.
(2) The Local Government Acts 1925 to 2003 and this Act shall be read together as one and this Act shall be included in the collective citation 'Local Government Acts 1925 to 2003'.".
This is simply a technical amendment which will essentially re-title the Bill when enacted as the Local Government (No. 2) Act 2003. This arose because another local government Bill initiated as the No. 2 Local Government Bill, to regularise certain matters in relation to the bridge order and was published subsequent to this Bill. In the event, the (No. 2) Bill overtook this Bill and was enacted on 10 April. This just makes the technical correction.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.-Section 27(1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following new paragraph:
'(aa) At the poll for a local election no referendum shall be held.’.”.
I am concerned that there has been a tendency in recent times to attach referenda to local elections. Local elections and European elections are held on the one day, and I presume this is also the plan for 2004. A referendum, when run in conjunction with local elections, can overshadow the local elections and take away from their importance, especially if the referendum is of a very controversial nature. It can lead to confusion among elderly people in particular when voters are faced with three different decisions at once. That is the reason I have put forward this amendment.
The amendment proposes a change to section 27 to provide that it should not be possible to hold a referendum poll with a local election. While I appreciate the Deputy's sentiment in wishing to focus the attention of the electorate on the importance of local elections, I obviously cannot accept the amendment. Under electoral law it is open to the Minister of the day to hold any number of polls together.
While there is an argument that the electorate should not be over-burdened on polling day - and I agree - or that a referendum on a major issue should not be held alongside another poll, it is important to maintain flexibility. The 1979 local elections were held with the European elections, the 1994 town council elections were held with the European elections and a number of by-elections and the 1999 local elections were again held with the European elections and a referendum on local government. All polls had synergy between them on that day. Following that referendum, elections to local authorities must be held not later than the end of the fifth year after the year in which they were last held, and local polls will now fall within the time frame of the European elections, with the intention that they be held on the same day.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.-Section 63(1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following new paragraph:
(aa) to carry out all functions including, but not limited to, local policing policy, education including pre-school education, reinstatement of local health committees, the distribution of lottery grants and local development including Leader programmes,’.”.
This amendment is being put down as a marker. The whole area of local government reform should involve not only decentralisation but the devolution of powers to make local government more meaningful. I have set out some of the functions that should be considered for devolution within the overall reform of local government.
I will not go into each of them separately because I did so already on Second Stage but this proposal should be taken on board by the Minister. I ask for his views on some of the proposals in the amendment.
There is a great deal of sense in what the Deputy is saying. He will probably be aware that, as we speak, a Cabinet sub-committee including myself, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is looking at many of these issues. I feel very strongly, as do other members of this committee, that many things happening outside of local government should be properly under the control of local government. These are but some of those issues outlined in the Deputy's amendment.
We need to look at this but this is not the Bill in which to do so. I do agree with the sentiment expressed by the Deputy. It is right and the Government recognises that. It is something we have already started to process in one specific way, but there are even wider issues involved. Many things come from the decision-making process within the Departments of central government that should properly be the responsibility of a local government structure with the autonomy to make decisions on a range of issues. One could probably say that every Department has some issues, bodies, agencies or whatever under its jurisdiction that should be directly responsible to the local government system. All of that will feed into the process we discussed earlier. I have great empathy with the Deputy's sentiment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.-Section 5 of the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 is hereby replaced in so far as the section relates to the limitation of election expenses and accordingly sections 72 and 75 of the Electoral Act 1997 are hereby revived to that extent.".
There is an anomaly here between what happens in general elections and local elections. In general elections we are subjected to a very strict regime in terms of spending limits, returns. With local elections, in contrast, there is no limit at all, to my knowledge or experience, on what can be spent. That anomaly should be rectified.
I note from what the Minister said on Committee Stage in the Seanad that he is looking at the whole question of expenditure limits in elections but I seek his assurance that people participating in the 2004 local elections will be subject to the same restrictions that are in place at present for persons running for the Dáil. I do not want it to be the case that the strength of the bank balance can dictate the strength of a campaign. Wealthy people could saturate a small area and have an impact on the outcome of a local election. The Minister should give us his plans to introduce limits for the 2004 election.
This is an important point and will have to be addressed rapidly. In the long-term, with the abolition of the dual mandate, a party or individuals could decide to put up candidates in every ward in a constituency to the detriment of a Deputy, spending whatever they like. That has to be looked at before the local elections. There are four or five wards in my constituency and individuals, a party or a lobby group could run teams of candidates with massive resources and one is not even in the field to fight back because one is barred from running as a Deputy. The Minister will have to look at Deputy Allen's valid point.
As I indicated, Deputies will agree the position we are in is pretty unworkable. We have moved from an unregulated system to a very regulated system. I am very interested in the local government structure, which works very well and is simple, transparent, accountable and fair. That is what the public wants. The figures from the last local elections indicate nothing like what Deputy Kelleher suggested could happen occurred, though that is not to say it might not happen in the future. I am working on the national electoral bill, which will obviously have consequences for this. However, I will not transpose that on to the local government system because it is disastrously wrong. I currently reviewing the electoral Act. I understand where Deputies are coming from and I want to conclude that as quickly as possible.
I have been clear that my view is that this is about transparency and accountability - where did a candidate get money, how much and from what source. Declaring all that is important to the public; limits are false.
As the local elections are every five years, they may occur during or just before Dáil elections. One could have a body or candidates spending endless amounts of money to predetermine the outcome.
I agree.
A Dáil candidate is either not in the field or is curtailed by how much he or she can spend. That is completely unfair.
I agree it should be the same for all public representatives. I am looking at this in the context of the national Bill and we will have to have a system that is the same for everyone.
It should be addressed before the election.
There is pressure to get this done.
I agree with Deputy Allen's amendment. There should be limits on the amounts to be spent in a local election. I am disturbed by the Minister's strong hints at the removal of limits regarding the legislation for national elections.
I am just giving a view.
As the Minister, his is the most important view around.
It is my view. The issue for the public is who gave money, the source of that money and how much was given. That will lead to debate and it will be transparent. I do not want a situation such as in the last election, when, three months before the time frame we were lashing out promotional material. That is nonsense. If we are to have limits they should be realistic. My perspective, as is the perspective in other countries, is that the issue is not one of artificial limits. I probably will not be able to get rid of those but the core issues are who paid, who got what, how much and where did it come from.
The Minister is missing one critical principle, that of the level playing field. The reason limits were introduced was not just a matter of transparency - the reason for limits on spending was to ensure fairness in the electoral contest and that one would not have highly resourced parties or individuals buying their way into either local government or Parliament. That is why we have limits. There were practical and teething problems with the new system which irritated everyone. There are ways of sorting those out but the principle in an electoral contest is that there must be equality of opportunity between parties and candidates. The only way to ensure that is to have some form of "cosc" on parties or individual spending what they want. Otherwise we will go down the American route.
I am saying the same thing. It is fine to have disclosure and to say where money is going but that can become a handicap, in the absence of limits, to those depending on the legitimate support of friends and neighbours. Such people may not match the resources of those who are trying to buy their way into power, which has happened in the past.
This needs to be debated because the system is not functioning as it stands. If one has a rough "guesstimate" as to when a general election will be held there is phenomenal spending in some constituencies prior to the date of the introduction of spending limits. We must acknowledge and address this.
Before the last change normal constituency business such as leaflet drops were considered a cost incurred. The amendment changed that but under the original Act any spending between elections was an election cost incurred. We now have a situation where there is a free-for-all before the election is called. This has to be addressed, as there should be a level playing field for all elections.
This is a very interesting point. I am aware the Attorney General passed me an interesting decision recently regarding a constitutional case in America which might have a resonance for us, not that their Constitution overlays ours. A case was won on the basis that any individual or organisation is entitled, inalienably, to support someone if they want and that support cannot be limited. It was very interesting. One can guess which lobby it was - the gun lobby - but that is the other side of the coin. I am not being argumentative but just giving my thoughts as this has some resonance with our Constitution. It might not be possible to limit freedom of expression to the degree we might have thought. If the IFA or any lobby group decided to support a particular candidate, under the Constitution is it open to it, to limit the support it might want to give? Perhaps it is. The United States had been operating under a different set of rules up to the case being taken and to the big surprise of everyone the case was won. I take the point and I will come back to it.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I came here with the intention of pressing it to a division. I think the Minister is sympathetic to the idea.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 8.
Question, "That section 8 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Schedule agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 3, line 5, after "TO" to insert "AMEND THE LOCAL ELECTIONS REGULATIONS 1995 TO".
This was consequential on the amendments I proposed earlier, which, as the Minister said, would have required amendment of the election regulations. Does the Minister consider it might be needed anyway, given the changes to local election regulations contained in the Bill?
I raised this point with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the advice I received indicates it is not necessary to explicitly mention the amendment to the regulations in question in the title. Furthermore that advice clarified that while the amendment to the regulations is important enough to warrant it being done by primary rather than by secondary legislation as is the case here, the matter can be said to be adequately catered for within the scope of the existing title, specifically that part of the title which states "AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS", which is what we do with all legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.