Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, lines 14 to 16, to delete subsection (3).
This refers to a number of points made on Second Stage. It refers to powers a Minister has, in particular the Minister for the Environment. The Minister has said many times that he is in favour of devolving as much power as possible to local government. This subsection goes against the spirit of that wish. It states that:
The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order made by the Minister under this Act (including an order made under this subsection).
Unfortunately, despite everything the Minister may wish to do, it seems that we allow the Minister a great deal of scope and responsibility. I am not suggesting that this Minister in particular would abuse his authority here. However, when we are embarking on new legislation every effort should be made to devolve powers. I wonder why it is necessary to give the Minister this power to amend or revoke an order. I would like to hear the Minister's explanation. This subsection deals with the powers of a Minister.
My amendment applies to the same subsection but is prompted by a different concern. I would like to replace "the Minister" in the second line with "any Minister" or "a Minister". In certain parts of this Bill, it is not just the Minister for the Environment who may make or revoke orders. I refer the Minister to section 5 (2) which states:
The Minister or any other Minister of the Government . . . may in respect of any enactment, instrument or agreement which relates to matters for which the relevant Minister has general responsibility, make regulations for the purposes . . .
Are we only limiting the revocation or amendment of an order to orders made by the Minister for the Environment? I accept that only the Minister for the Environment will amend or revoke an order, but would it be necessary for a Minister for the Environment to amend or revoke an order made by another Minister under this Bill? It appears that other Ministers will have roles in terms of orders and regulations under this Bill. I want clarification on the interpretation of the language used in this subsection.
Only the Minister for the Environment can make or revoke an order. Other Ministers may make regulations. The Deputy's amendment is unnecessary because only the Minister for the Environment can make or revoke the order.
That answers the question.
We have covered the issues raised by Deputy Keogh. The practical situation is that unforeseen circumstances may arise where, if one does not have this power and one wants to make a genuine change, one would have to come to the Dáil and introduce primary legislation to enable the change to be made. This could even happen where a local council decides to change its name. These powers are important. They were not disputed in the 1985 or 1991 Local Government Acts and are part of the principle of covering unforeseen circumstances. They are in no way an effort to get involved. We are trying to write into primary legislation a provision to cover unforeseen circumstances and to avoid having to come back to the House and have somebody say we should have thought of that eventuality the first day and made provision for it.
I understand the point the Minister is making and, to a certain extent, it is a valid one. However, it is important at this stage to indicate on the record exactly what the situation is. I am not casting doubt on the Minister but everybody would not have that attitude. I accept the Minister's point that he wants to be more open and so on, but it must be put on the record.
There is power in the Interpretation Act to revoke regulations but not orders.
On a point of order, how are we affected by the vote in the House? Are we all paired?
I was going to finish the two amendments being discussed and then adjourn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Sitting suspended at 5.5 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.
For the information of Members, the Whips have agreed that we will continue tomorrow and later today if there are to be votes.
Are you suggesting that we are paired?
I think the spokespersons are paired.
Just the spokespersons?
Yes, and the Minister and the convenor.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) No regulation made under this Act shall have the effect of diminishing the functions or powers of the three new county councils.".
This section deals with orders and regulations to be made by the Minister arising from this legislation. I will deal later with my concern about the extent to which there are provisions in this Bill giving the Minister power to make regulations and give directions, orders and instructions to local authorities. My concern is to ensure that regulations made by the Minister will not diminish the functions and powers of the three new councils being established. We would all be happy if regulations and orders were made which would enhance the functions and powers of the three new councils. The Minister has spoken on several occasions — mostly when devolving small and relatively meaningless functions to local authorities — about his commitment to devolution to local government. This is an opportunity for him to accept that, in the context of this legislation, anything he or any of his successors will do will not in any way diminish the functions and powers of the three new councils. That is what the amendment seeks to ensure.
I would like to make the following general comments regarding the power to make regulations under the Bill. Regulations under the Bill fall into a number of categories: regulations to enable the Act to have full effect; to remove difficulties; to provide, where necessary, for other enactments to have effect in conformity with this Act; to deal with issues which arise by virtue of boundary alterations or the abolition of Dún Laoghaire Borough; to provide for the detailed implementation of specific transfer arrangements in accordance with the Bill — the transfer of water supply in extra-municipal areas to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, and the transfer of houses and land pursuant to the Third Schedule; to allow for such additional detailed provisions, if any, to be made by the Minister for Education to enable existing vocational education committees to continue in operation and for the operation of the higher education grants system by the new councils. There is nothing sinister so far in my efforts.
Where is all that stated in the Bill?
Essentially, the regulatory powers simply allow for the implementation and operation of the new county councils established by the Bill and for the necessary consequential supplementary provisions to be made in this regard or in relation to other legal codes directly affected by this Bill. In other words, the Bill cannot deal with everything. Regulations simply allow for any necessary supplementary provision to be made.
The Bill has implications for a number of other Acts which are listed under the heading "Acts referred to", on pages three and four of the Bill. It is possible that some matter may arise which has not been dealt with specifically by the Bill, for example, where another enactment needs to be adjusted slightly to enable it to continue to operate within a situation where three new councils have been established. It is perfectly reasonable that the Oireachtas, having determined the principle and, indeed, much of the detail for the establishment of the new councils, will enable the Minister to implement any other adjustments which are necessary to ensure that the Act would be enabled to operate fully. There is nothing unusual in this approach. It simply allows the reorganisation process to be implemented.
Clearly it would not be possible for the Bill to deal with every minute detail of the transfers to which I have referred until the local authorities themselves have worked out the detailed picture of the implications. It is reasonable that at that stage regulations could be made to allow the transfers to proceed and to make any detailed provisions which may be identified as necessary to enable that to happen.
At present I am not aware, and the local authorities are not aware of the precise arrangements which they need to make. This will only become clear when a complete and comprehensive picture of all the properties has been assembled and the future arrangements have been worked out by the local authorities, for example, in regard to the operation of the housing system in the light of transfers.
Against this general background I wish to refer more specifically to the amendment. The amendment seeks to ensure that the functions and powers of local authorities are not diminished by regulations under the Bill. The need for section 3, so far as regulations are concerned, has already been outlined. As indicated, all the regulatory powers contained in the Bill relate to the implementation and the operation of the new county councils and for necessary consequential provisions. Any possible diminution in the powers and functions of the three new councils can only arise, therefore, in this context, for example, in the implementation of the Act, which the Oireachtas will have approved, and there will be no interference with the general powers vested in the new councils in any other context. It is essential that these powers be vested in the Minister as nobody, Minister, councils or Dublin local authorities, can spell out at this stage all possible implications of the reorganisation process.
Every regulation made under the Bill must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House within 21 sitting days. Similar regulatory powers can be found in other Acts, for example, section 3 of the Local Government Act, 1991, and these have never been abused. Deputy Gilmore made reference to the fact that on occasion I have highlighted my desire to devolve further functions to local authorities. As the Deputy is aware, in every piece of legislation I have sponsored as Minister for the Environment, I have found a way to include new functions for the local authorities or powers which were originally vested in the Minister for the Environment to be transferred to local authority level. In addition, any time I find an opportunity to continue down that road I will proceed for as long as I am Minister for the Environment. However, in this instance we have had an opportunity to tease out this issue in other fora.
Not everyone is aware at this stage of the full implications of the resolution to this transfer process and the establishment of new councils. I do not believe we should tie our hands completely; this House has a guarantee from me that I do not wish to get involved in diminishing the powers of the council and to prove this I would even be prepared to look the wording in this provision between now and Report Stage.
I share many of the concerns expressed through Deputy Gilmore's amendment. I listened carefully to the Minister's response, but there are still many areas in section 3 with which I am unhappy.
Section 3 deals with regulatory powers, revoking of the procedure in relation to regulations if problems should occur later with the enactment of this Bill. All the difficulties expressed here relate to the cumbersome procedure in section 3 (1) of getting an annulling resolution into the House in Government time. Many of our concerns would abate if the Minister could assure us that when serious issues are changed or dealt with by a resolution we will get Government time to debate them if an Opposition spokesperson puts down an annulling resolution. My one experience with the annulling resolution procedure was in the last session on the access to environmental information regalation. After much trouble on the Order of Business and efforts through the Whips office, we were finally allowed to make statements on the issue on a Thursday. We were not even allowed to vote on the regulation. It might be said that was academic given the current strength of the Government but a democratic principle is involved, that of being able to vote on a motion. If the Minister could assure this committee it would be acceptable to debate — and I stress debate — an annulling resolution during Government time, many of our concerns with the extension of the use of regulations would be abated. Without the safeguard of being able to debate and vote on an annulling resolution, we on this side of the House can only persist in our argument that the extent to which this Government is using regulations to enact law is undemocratic and bringing democratic procedure into disrepute.
Section 3 (7) reads:
If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing any provision of this Act into operatiom or in relation to the operation of any such provision, the Minister may by regulations do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient of removing that difficulty . . .
This is giving the Minister carte blancheto do what he likes. Anything forgotten or which subsequently proves difficult or any changes to any aspect of this important Bill can effectively be changed by regulation by the Minister or his successors.
The Minister is asking a lot when he expects us to accept the section as worded without giving assurances that the annulling resolution procedure on regulations will be democratically debated certainly in the Dáil and preferably in both Houses of the Oireachtas. There should be a political input. The democratic deficit should not be increased, although doing so appears to be part of Government policy. If a tally was done of the number of occasions within legislation when this Government has made provision to change the law by regulation at some future date if it suits a Minister, there would be concern at how it is hiving away the democratic right of elected Members of the Dáil and Seanad to debate issues.
The question is whether the procedure of the annulling resolution can be democratised. If we were given assurances on that we could accept most if not all of section 3 in relation to allowing the Minister discretion at a later stage to handle problems that may genuinely arise. I accept the Minister's point but we want the right to veto the decision in these Houses. That is our democratic right and it is what we are elected to do. We do not want legislation by diktat, we want to be able to contribute to changes in legislation. I think the Minister would not disagree with that principle, although he might use different words to argue the case. We must be democratic and transparent in our procedures and give no Minister the power to dictate to this House or any future Parliament what changes in law are to be enacted.
I support the thrust of Deputy Gilmore's amendment. I believe in strongly respecting the statutory powers of local authorities. There is a particular sensitivity in Dublin because of the need for a strategic physical planning of the area, so as not to lose the identity of greater Dublin as we now know it. We must safeguard the functions and the powers of these three new county councils and the statutory elected members to those councils. That will be done if we get assurances on how this Minister, and future Ministers, will operate the power of regulation, which they are taking upon themselves in this section.
The Minister seems to have a problem with Deputy Gilmore's amendment. Having listened to his answer, I am not sure if he is taking this opportunity to tell us about the Bill, but I do not see a problem with it. By agreeing to the amendment, the Minister is giving up nothing. The Bill contains numerous facilities for the Minister to exercise discretion in many areas. As the Minister always had considerable powers, this amendment does not change anything. Compared with other countries, what we have here is local administration rather than local government because the decision making still seems to be discretionary and under the Minister's power. Therefore, this is a welcome amendment.
I support this amendment. I do not believe the Minister would be under any great constraint by accepting it because he has adequate facilities throughout the Bill, and especially in this section, to enforce regulations. Accepting this amendment would send the message that the Minister could alter functions or powers to a certain extent. However, the powers of the three new county councils do not need to be diminished and it would not be appropriate to have such regulations for them. To a certain extent the Minister is saying let us wait and see because we may have to tinker around the edges with the effects of the legislation. This may be the case but if the new county councils are to autonomous, the onus should be on the councils themselves to get their act together and to be effective.
I also concur with Deputy Doyle's comments on annulling resolutions. As regards regulations we have to put on record our difficulty with the Minister having too much power. Since we now have a committee system, which hopefully will expand, there should always be the opportunity to debate such matters as regulations, etc. It would be appropriate for the Minister to accept this amendment.
I am surprised the Minister has not accepted the amendment. There was nothing in his reply to justify it. I agree with the comments made by Deputy Sargent and Deputy Keogh about the difficulties that we experience in this House with Government by regulation, where we do not get sufficient opportunity to examine secondary legislation.
We depend on regulations for things to happen and often, regulations have not been made. For example, regulations dealing with the Local Government Act, 1991, which would enable local authorities to function much more effectively, to establish committees, to involve local communities and so on, have not yet been made.
The point I want to make — and I do not intend to initiate a long debate — is that the Minister should not do anything to reduce the powers and functions of the three new councils. He has put it on the record that this is his intention. He has also stated that he will introduce a form of words on Report Stage to give effect to this. I am happy to wait until I see his form of words, therefore I will withdraw my amendment. However, in the absence of the form of words he has promised this evening, I will retable the amendment on Report Stage. It is important to state in the legislation that no Minister for the Environment can exercise his powers in order to reduce the powers and functions of local authorities. There is no point saying this in press releases or in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I will wait until I see the form of words the Minister has promised on Report Stage.
There is no doubt about my intentions in relation to the wording on Report Stage. I want to give one or two examples of the type of difficulties which could arise if we accepted Deputy Gilmore's amendment. There is no doubt that Dublin Corporation will lose its powers over housing and land and this is a diminishment of its powers. The amendment asks me not to make any provision for such an eventuality. For instance, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council——
There are three new county councils.
——may wish Dublin Corporation to provide fire fighting facilities. That is a diminishment of its powers. It is similar to our position in the European Community where a reduction in what people call sovereignty is often required in order to have a say in wider policy areas. We should give councils freedom in how they operate and make decisions.
I want to deal with Deputy Doyle's question because it has been raised during debates on all legislation. The Deputy has had an opportunity to process legislation through the House and she knows it would be impossible for all the regulatory areas to form part of the primary legislation. We make a tremendous effort to prepare legislation, to put it through the Department, and to establish contact with the relevant Departments and the draftsman. Having done so, we eventually bring forward principles to enshrine in legislation. It would be impossible to include all the regulatory and anticipatory work in legislation. As several hundred statutory instruments passed through the Dáil last year, it would not be possible to operate our business. We must be practical about this.
I have no objection to a debate on the annulment, but it cannot be decided in the Department of the Environment. It is a matter for the Whips and it is a general provision because it affects other legislation. I assure the Committee that I am open to this in circumstances where it is justified. However, it must be agreed on a general basis; it cannot be specific to one Department. As I said, I undertake to ensure that an amendment is brought forward on Report Stage to limit the extent to which the Minister has power in this area and to spell out what I intend to achieve. I ask Deputy Gilmore to understand that in the practical operation of everyday management between councils, decisions are taken from time to time to diminish their powers. However, this is done in a practical, economic way and I do not want to get involved in diminishing their powers, although the councils may do so themselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, lines 37 to 42, to delete subsection (7).
If I interpreted the Minister's final comments correctly, the wide ranging unspecified powers which he seems to be granting to himself and to other Ministers for the Environment in subsection (7) will be made more specific by an amendment on Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister could tell me if my interpretation of his last remarks is correct.
This provision can be found in a number of pieces of legislation.
Is it as widely worded? The Minister is being generous to himself.
It can be found in section 52 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1991, section 4 of the Building Societies Act, 1989, section 85 of the Health Act, 1970, section 13 of the Canals Act, 1986, and in section 22 of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985. I am not doing something which has never been done before.
In order to facilitate the Committee and to yield to the unrelenting pressure from my colleagues to change my mind, I am prepared to limit the time during which the provision is operative, although the power is essential in the early stages. I am prepared to consider limiting the power and to specify the time at which it should end.
The Minister stated a few minutes ago that several hundred statutory instruments passed through the Dáil last year. The Opposition decided to annul only one of these by way of resolution. I make this point to indicate how a more generous application of the annulling procedure would make the system of secondary legislation or Government by regulation more democratic. A Government has nothing to fear if it could indicate a willingness to take annulling resolutions, as distinct from statements, during Government time. The Minister's statement only serves to underline my request which is feasible and practical.
If we debated every resolution in Government time, as we do primary legislation, I would accept the point the Minister is making. Some of these could be small, detailed points relating to changing levels, implementation dates or technical details which do not affect the general thrust of the legislation. The Minister has nothing to fear by requesting the Government — it is not the House because the Opposition has no say in this matter — to give Government time to debate an annulling resolution.
The Minister would erode the democratic deficit which has grown because in recent years we have had Government by regulation to a far greater degree than ever before. Perhaps we are more conscious of this as a result of the number of EC Directives which are translated into Irish law by way of resolution. Indeed, the courts have had something to say in recent times about the procedures we have used in the Houses of the Oireachtas for enacting EC law. Perhaps we are more aware of procedures but I believe we are now using the weapon of Government by regulation more often than in the past. That is why the annulling procedure must be transparent, above board, debated in Government time and by way of a motion.
Mr. M. Smith: Deputy Doyle is forgetting that we are using these regulatory powers more frequently now because we are introducing greater volumes of legislation than was the practice heretofore. As I indicated earlier, I do not know how the mechanism could be operated in a way which would limit it to dealing with the more serious matters in a practical way. I am prepared to discuss it with my colleagues in Government to see if we can have an open and transparent debate on these matters, subject to the limit of time and to some crude way of determining what is most serious.
In present circumstances, all we are trying to do is to make a provision so that, if a difficulty arises and prevents the Act coming into force we do not have to bring in primary legislation to solve it because we would obviously be criticised in those circumstances. As the Deputy knows, we have been criticised for certain amendments which were made in legislation. People have asked why it was necessary to come back with legislation and why the matter had not been dealt with originally but we were unable to foresee what could happen. There is nothing sinister in giving extra powers to the Minister. It is a facilitatory provision to deal with unforeseen difficulties. I have given an undertaking that I will specify a time limit. The transfer apparatus, reorganisation and establishment will take time and many areas will be ironed out through discussion between the various authorities.
On the point being made about the procedures for dealing with regulations, I agree with Deputy Doyle. There is an increasing amount of legislation being made by regulation. Much of the primary legislation that is brought before the House is enabling legislation and the real meat is in the regulations. In practice, those regulations are not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The annulling procedure is rarely used and is very difficult to exercise anyway.
It would be a good idea if these committees were used as a vehicle for regulations which are at draft stage. Most will take some time to make although the odd one will have to be rushed through. It might help the Government avoid falling into certain pitfalls. For example, when the Minister's predecessor heard something on a radio programme about dangerous dogs he made regulations muzzling all kinds of harmless little animals.
Innocent beasts. Pooches.
Lap dogs.
He was almost savaged by members of his party during the subsequent local elections when it became a difficult issue. There are many issues where, if the draft regulations were brought before the appropriate committee, a little commonsense could be applied to them and that would help all round.
This is an area where it would be very helpful if the Minister could bring it back to Government and on Report Stage indicate the Government's thinking on it. With the committee structure we have more opportunities to debate issues than heretofore when we were restricted to debates in the Dáil and Seanad Chambers. There is no need to fear clogging up the legislative system by being more generous in annulling resolutions generally in terms of Government by regulations. I ask the Minister and his colleagues in Government to give a little thought to this. The Minister said he will think about it and perhaps by Report Stage he could indicate whether the genuine fears across the political spectrum on this side of the House about the increase in Government by regulation could be allayed by greater transparency in dealing with annulling resolutions. Last year there were approximately two hundred SIs and one annulling resolution to my knowledge. If that is the rate at which resolutions are tabled, the Minister and the Government have little to fear, particularly as Deputy Gilmore pointed out with the Committee system. Any of them can go to Committee and be thrashed out there. That procedure is in place and it is worth it, perhaps not now as I know this Bill is specific but the procedure of secondary legislation and Government by regulation needs to be looked at. The courts have said it needs to be looked at because of our own primary legislation and the enacting of European legislation into Irish law by way of regulation.
I have said enough on that point. I understand I should be speaking to amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I will not be pressing amendment No. 4.
Is the Deputy withdrawing amendment No. 4?
Yes.
Do you wish to withdraw amendment No. 5 also?
No. I was about to speak to amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 5 attempts to deal with major concerns that have arisen with this Bill in terms of implementing the housing policy of the County Borough of Dublin, or Dublin Corporation as we more frequently refer to it, after the enactment of this Bill. The Minister is happy to take on himself the facility to change by way of regulation any difficulty that arises in relation to the operation of this Bill in section 3 (7). I ask for a specific reference from the Minister by way of my amendment. If any difficulty arises in relation to the co-ordination of housing policy between the County Borough of Dublin and the three administrative counties of Dublin established under this Act, the Minister may, by regulation, "do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for removing that difficulty, for bringing that provision into operation, or for securing or facilitating its operation".
I recognise the statutory powers and functions of county councillors. At this point a conflict would appear to arise between the statutory functions of the city council and those of the three new county councils in relation to the housing needs of the electorate or constituents in both areas. As this Bill proposes to hand to the new county councils any housing or land belonging to the corporation that will be in the new councils' areas, pending enactment of the Bill and without any assurance of compensation for same, there are major concerns across the political spectrum in Dublin Corporation that its ability to meet the housing needs of future applicants is seriously compromised. They will neither have funds for money already expended on lands in county council areas nor will they have a land bank on which to construct houses to meet the housing needs of their applicants. I understand there will be over 5,000 applicants in future years.
I understand there is to be some coordinating of the housing needs of the greater Dublin area through a regional authority. That is one of the best kept secrets of this Government. I do not know what the functions and day to day operational remit of the new regional authority will be but if the Minister has chosen the occasion of this Bill to indicate what exactly will happen in relation to the regional authority and what its functions will be, perhaps this amendment and others would be unnecessary. I would like the Minister to accept that there are huge concerns in Dublin Corporation about the changes in this Bill in terms of their land banks and housing stock which are to be handed to the new county councils and how they will be able to cope with their housing responsibilities. If they are unable to meet the needs of their housing applicants, the functions and the powers of Dublin city councillors will be diminished by this Bill.
The Minister can put a time limit on this amendment as suggested in section 4 (7), but if difficulties arise which are evident to many — I believe the Minister will suggest they are not — I would like the Minister to be in a position to resolve them and to ensure that the thousands of housing applicants to Dublin City Council can be looked after by that authority. Nothing in this Bill or in its future enactment should diminish the ability of Dublin Corporation to meet the needs of its housing applicants. That is the purpose of this amendment.
I support some of the comments made by Deputy Doyle. The Minister is aware of the problems of Dublin City Council in relation to this Bill and its housing and land bank. If the housing and land banks are removed, up to 40 per cent of those on Dublin City Council's housing list will have nowhere to go unless the Minister takes remedial action under the Bill. Dublin City Council and the three new councils have a responsibility to create a common housing list and the Minister has probably considered this. I understand the new Dublin regional authority which the Minister has set in motion will scrutinise funding under the Structural Funds. This will give it an interesting remit.
As Deputy Doyle said, the City Council has a major problem in relation to housing lists. However, I do not believe this amendment is necessary to alter that situation. The Minister could take action under this and other local government legislation to initiate a common housing policy. Dublin city councillors see the need for local democratic responsibility in relation to local authority housing management. However, an anomaly exists. A large portion of Dublin City Council's housing stock, particularly houses, is located in the County Dublin area and it also has a significant land bank there. Next year the Minister will tell Dublin City Council to proceed with the public housing policy successfully initiated this year and he will ask for 700-1,000 new houses or new house purchases. Dublin City Council will have problems in this regard. I ask the Minister to amend the Bill or to make provision for a common housing list and, as Deputy Doyle suggested, to facilitate housing policy in the greater Dublin area under the new regional authority.
This amendment raises a number of issues. This is not a new problem. For many years there has been a problem with Dublin Corporation's housing stock located in the county area. I understand 4,000 Dublin Corporation tenants have been housed in schemes developed by the corporation in areas of County Dublin, particularly west County Dublin in Clondalkin and Tallaght.
Eleven thousand tenants?
Yes, 11,000 tenants. In practice, Dublin Corporation housed their tenants in these areas and forgot about them, apart from collecting rent.
That is not true. Dublin Corporation has looked after its tenants. That is a nonsensical charge. Dublin Corporation has special responsibility for large flat land territories for which Dublin County Council has not been responsible and we have looked after the bulk of our tenants.
If we talk to the tenants in schemes developed by Dublin Corporation, in areas such as Tallaght, Clondalkin, etc., we find that when they approach the management of Dublin Corporation to get various works done——
Deputy Gilmore, please stick to the amendment.
I am sticking to the amendment. This amendment deals with the transfer of housing responsibility between one housing authority and another. Tenants of those dwellings will say the management of Dublin Corporation forgot about them once they were housed in these areas. Although they were tenants of Dublin Corporation, they were housed in areas where they were unable to elect people to that authority. In many of the areas where these housing estates are located, local representatives are elected to Dublin County Council.
If tenants in other parts of the city or county have problems and find management unresponsive, they can go to their local councillor who can raise the matter with the local council and, if necessary, the manager. The councillor can give instructions, pass motions, etc., and this is the way business is done. It is not possible to do business in that way here because local representatives are elected to a local authority by people who are not tenants of that authority. When these local representatives approach the management of Dublin Corporation, they find the corporation dismissive. Dublin Corporation has inherited a legacy of neglect. It is appropriate that the housing stock of these tenants be transferred to the local authority to which they elect representatives and then local representatives can be accountable to tenants.
I refer to the question of housing policy which this amendment raises. A number of matters must be addressed. Is it desirable to uproot people from a community and house them in areas far from where they were born, grew up and where their extended family live? The housing policy pursued in the greater Dublin area over the past 20 to 30 years has been an unmitigated disaster and has resulted in huge social problems. People have been uprooted from their local community, friends and families and they have been sent to outer Clondalkin, Tallaght or elsewhere. Often they are two or three bus journeys from their original home. That is a problem which is not confined to Dublin Corporation.
In one of the new authorities we are creating, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, there are problems in that regard. There is a shortage of land because it is an urban authority. Where will we house the 1,300 people on the combined Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown housing list? The only plot of land we have is located in Ballyogan. This land cannot be developed because there is no sewage service in the area. Even if it was developed, it would not be sufficient to house those on the current list, not to mention those who will be on the list in the future. Where will that authority house these people?
The shared ownership scheme and the other schemes in the plan for social housing are not workable because of house prices in that area. An average three-bedroomed semi-detached house on the periphery of that area costs approximately £55,000 to £60,000 and this is beyond the means of those who want to buy a house under the plan for social housing. There is a critical need to look at the question of housing policy in Dublin, because the number on the waiting list is growing at a frightening rate. Although I disagree with some of the points Deputy Broughan made, I understand the concerns expressed in Dublin Corporation about what can be done to deal with the huge waiting list. It is a concern of every local authority.
One also has to look at what is happening to house prices in some parts of Dublin. In the area of Dublin I represent, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, increasing prices are putting houses beyond most people's means, not just those on the housing waiting list but also people who might normally be in a position to buy a house. They are being driven out of the areas they grew up in and that brings social disruption.
There is a wider issue that has to be addressed, and that is the transfer of housing responsibility, including the problem of uprooted citizens and tenants who were rehoused in the county by Dublin Corporation and forgotten about.
This amendment raises a number of issues which I am not convinced the amendment before us, as drafted, can deal with. As a member of Dublin County Council, which will be the new Fingal County Council, we have to acknowledge the problem that exists on the ground. In fairness to my colleague Deputy Broughan, the policy initiated in the 1970s and early 1980s was put in place long before he was a member of Dublin Corporation. If we are going to develop a community spirit in those areas and allow tenants to be involved in the administration of their estates, they will have to be transferred back into the new relevant county council areas. We are talking about 7,468 council housing stock units rented to tenants in those areas, particularly in Fingal and South Dublin. We must learn from the policies of the past when people were literally lifted up out of their inner city environment and dropped into a green field situation in the middle of County Dublin just because Dublin Corporation had land there. There was no infrastructure, good, bad or indifferent, no shops, no public transport, no recreation facilities and, above all, no jobs or possibilities of jobs in those areas. That is what we have been left to deal with. At the moment it is very difficult for councillors or TDs to bring about a change of policy that would help people in the Dublin north constituency when the decisions are taken by councillors in Dublin County Council which recovers a wider area. We must learn from and deal with that situation.
We must also acknowledge that if you take 7,500 houses out of Dublin Corporation's stock there will be a real problem. We have to look realistically at the needs of tenants and residents who want to have some control in their own county council area. We must have a mechanism to ensure that the transfer of responsibilities can take place over a reasonable period. The Minister referred to this on Second Stage. Within a year it should be possible to devise a plan to transfer responsibility for these houses back to the new county council areas. I do not know whether we can get agreement on it but as public representatives we are looking for responsibility and power. It is up to us in the three new areas, in conjunction with our colleagues in Dublin Corporation, to try to devise a plan that, above everything else, will take on board the needs of people living there as well as those on the housing list. If such a plan could be devised we might not require this amendment.
I was reluctant to intervene because housing is dealt with primarily in section 35 and the co-ordination area is dealt with primarily in section 32. The amendment moved by Deputy Doyle limits a general provision and is in the wrong section. If it were to deal with housing it would obviously have to come in the appropriate section. I am happy to look at a provision in the appropraite section that would incorporate some of the thinking in that amendment.
It is a bit simplistic to say that Dublin Corporation faces a problem because both the county and city face a problem. Deputy Ryan is obviously committed to discussing and resolving the issue. We are setting the parameters here and will come to that in the later section. We should wait until we come to that section to deal with housing. For the purposes of the amendment, I am signalling my intention to deal with it in an appropriate way in the housing section on Report Stage rather than limiting the general provision here.
I am happy to wait for the debate on the housing issue under this Bill in later sections. I was advised that when I wanted to introduce a regulatory power, because of my subsequent concerns, we could identify some of the problems now. However, I have a feeling there could be others that are not as obvious. As the Minister was taking regulatory powers upon himself generally in the operation of this Bill, and because difficulties may arise, I wanted to table an amendment specifically on housing co-ordination and the problems that may arise there. I am happy to wait until Report Stage so that the Minister can see if he could incorporate the sentiments of the amendment as distinct from the amendment proper.
There is a regulatory power in section 35. In this case you would just be limiting a general provision which, as I have said, I am prepared to operate for a specific time. It is not appropriate for this section.
I was advised and did not choose the section. I was directed towards this section so I am happy to take the Minister's advice. I have no difficulty with that.
Is amendment No. 5 being withdrawn?
No. I think the best way to handle it would be to leave it until Report Stage to see what we can do.
We will not be dealing with it in that section.
May I have leave to withdraw it from this section and re-enter something similar in the correct section on Report Stage? Maybe the Minister will look at it in the meantime.
Yes, you can bring it back on Report Stage.
In the right section?
Yes.
Of course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4. . . . Where the Minister proposes to make an order under section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1941, regarding the members of . . .
(a) South Dublin County Council,
(b) Fingal County Council, or
(c) Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council,
a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
We were talking earlier about regulations, their effect and the power Ministers for the Environment have under various legislation. One of the Ministers for the Environment's most extraordinary powers is provided in the Local Government Act, 1941. This is the power to abolish a council. It has been used on a number of occasions to stand down councils——
——who refuse to strike a rate.
——but is more often used, particularly at this time of the year, to threaten and bully a council into doing things it may not want to do. There is always a suspicion running through a great deal of local government legislation that members of local authorities will act irresponsibily. Provisions are inserted to deal with this. I am proposing a formula which should be applied in such circumstances. According to this formula, if the Minister for the Environment feels that members of a local authority should be suspended, the mechanism by which he can do this is to bring an appropriate motion or draft order before the Houses of the Oireachtas so that they can debate it openly and make a decision on it. It is inherently undemocratic that the Minister for the Environment can, with the stroke of a pen, remove from office members of a local authority who have been democratically elected. If the Minister is of the view that such action has to be taken, a proposal to that effect should be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas and debated openly. This situation normally arises when a local authority has difficulty adopting Estimates.
I draw the Minister's attention to the potential difficulty which faces the three new county councils in the new year. The annual estimates have to be agreed sometime during January and February. The first meetings of the new councils have to be held by 21 January 1994. The new councils will inherit the debts of the existing Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation. My understanding is that these debts will amount to about £25 million. The debts of Dublin County Council account for £22 million of this and the remaining £3 million is accounted for by the debts of Dún Laoghaire Corporation. These debts will present the new local authorities with a very difficult situation as they adopt their first sets of estimates. A submission has been made to the Minister in relation to this and he should very much bear it in mind.
The abolition of councils is the problem I seek to address. The only way a local authority should be abolished or stood down, if at all, is by vote of the Houses of the Oireachtas and certainly not by ministerial order.
In another amendment Deputy Gilmore seeks to effectively remove some of the members of the new councils from office next year by having an election next June. Is this so?
Some of them richly deserve it.
This may be so.
Is the Deputy prepared to name them? They should not be tarred with the same brush.
The effect of the amendment would be to require that any order made by the Minister to remove from office members of any of the new county councils would first have to be approved in draft by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The amendment seeks, in effect, to revise the provision of section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1941. That Act applies to all local authorities. Any proposals for change must be considered in the context of the code of law of overall local government and not in respect of three out of 113 elected local authorities. I have said that before the next year I will bring forward a general Local Government Bill to update local government law as it applies to local authorities generally. An amendment such as this would be much more appropriate to such a Bill. In spite of Deputy Gilmore's protestations, he knows section 44 has been used very sparingly and in the most exceptional cases. It was used four times in 50 years.
That was too much.
Given that this power was used on only four occasions in 50 years, there is not a compelling need for an amendment. This power is exercised only after every other possible measure to resolve the problems is undertaken. I am not too sure that in circumstances where that power did not exist we might not have problems which the very power itself has resolved without it being exercised. Most of us in public life understand this very well. There is no desire on our part to exercise the power but it is essential to retain it. I suggest Deputy Gilmore is not anxious to remove that power only in relation to Dublin. He would be concerned about Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford and elsewhere. He will appreciate, therefore, that his proposed alteration is not appropriate to a Bill which is limited in geographical terms. I will give him a full opportunity to put forward such an amendment some time in the coming year when a Local Government Bill dealing with the country as a whole will be introduced.
Will the Minister accept the amendment then?
That is another day, Deputy Keogh. Take one day at a time.
I accept this Bill applies only to Dublin. Therefore, I could only table the amendment in the context of three new Dublin authorities. Some time ago I introduced a Private Members' Bill to the same effect. That Bill was prompted by the very threatening and menacing way in which section 44 was used by one of the Minister's predecessors to issue all kinds of threats to a number of local authorities. It would be more appropriate to table such an amendment in the context of the more general Bill to which the Minister referred. I have noted he has not given any indication of his willingness to accept it. Perhaps he might reflect on this between now and then. There is a democratic issue involved here. It is not democratic to have a provision that a Minister can by regulation abolish an elected body, no matter how sparingly it is used. There is considerable dispute about some of the four occasions when it was used in the past. There was certainly a great deal of dispute about its use in relation to the abolition of Dublin City Council 25 years ago or so.
The House has on a number of occasions indicated its satisfaction with the understanding nature of the present Minister for the Environment. With all due respect to my predecessors over 50 years, on only four occasions was that provision exercised. It is important to again put this on record so that nobody would try to suggest it is a power which Ministers use frequently, that they dash into their offices in the morning to see which is the first council they can abolish that day. The record shows that is not anywhere close to the facts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.