Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, lines 30 to 43, to delete subsections (4), (5) and (6).
This amendment is proposing the deletion of three subsections. Subsection (4) states that:
The Minister may give to the relevant local authorities and the managers . . . for those authorities such general or particular directions in relation to the execution of or compliance with any provision of this Act or regulations thereunder . . .
Subsection (5) goes on to give the Minister the power to amend or revoke those directions and states that, "A person to whom a direction is given under this Act shall comply therewith."
I would have thought that if it is the function of the elected members of local authorities to make the policy for the council, then that should be sufficient. The manager should be following the direction and policies set down by his or her county manager. I think it is all "his" at the moment; I await the day when we will have a woman county manager. By the looks of it we might have a long wait.
Do not hold your breath.
You will live to see it some day.
I do not see the necessity for these three subsections. The Minister has given himself powers to make regulations under this piece of legislation. That should be sufficient. It stands to reason that if regulations are made, the local authorities will comply with them. I do not see why it is necessary to include here this bludgeoning subsection saying that they can be issued with directions. I know that the Minister and his Ministers of State have become adept recently in sending out circulars on all kinds of issues to local authorities. To use a phrase used this time last year, they might go mad altogether if they got powers of this kind and issue all kinds of directions to local authorities.
I do not see the necessity for it. The power is there to make regulations. Presumably, local authorities will comply with regulations if they are made. This additional subsection saying that they have to comply with them seems somewhat superfluous, unless of course the Minister is implying that local authorities will in some way refuse to implement regulations or act in a way which is contrary to the legislation. There is certainly no indication that would be the case. The local authorities have co-operated fulsomely, both elected members and managers, in bringing the reorganisation of local government in Dublin to this stage where we are now completing the legislative process by putting this piece of legislation through.
I tabled an amendment to delete just subsection (5). I am in agreement also with Deputy Gilmore's amendment to delete subsection (4). From time to time the Minister does not show enough faith in the elected members. However, in this instance he is probably not showing a great deal of faith in the executive. I do not know if the Minister is going a little too far in these subsections. I do not see the necessity for it. It is a type of belt and braces approach. The Minister has sufficient powers already under the Bill. I do not believe that these particular subsections are needed. I remain to be persuaded on it.
We must compliment the management, in particular, of the three area councils on their response to this whole break-up of Dublin County Council into three bodies. They just took the job on board and the elected representatives ran with it as well. The whole idea was a co-operative dealing between the Minister's Department and the elected representatives and officials. That alone should give the Minister great succour. He should accept that the elected representatives do, in the main, show responsibility. I believe that the managers and officials also show great responsibility. I do not believe there is a necessity for these subsections.
One of the fundamental reservations I have about this Bill, as I think many people have, is that we wonder if its basic aim is necessary. I said on the introduction of the Bill that there is only one Dublin. Historically, there has been effectively a shadow Dublin authority, because the Dublin city manager and county manager was the same person. The three new managers of the three new counties are all graduates of Dublin City Council. Of the 11,000 local aurhority employees in Dublin County, 7,000 of them will be still working for Dublin City Council. Many services will still be controlled by Dublin City Council.
However, it does pose the question of why we embarked on this and why the Barrington report recommended splitting Dublin in this way. I do not think it was a solution. It goes back to a genuine fear wiich exists in the national government that if Dublin had its own effective local government, it would pose a threat to the national Government because of the sheer size of the Dublin area. That is a fundamental problem.
I am glad to hear, however, that the Minister is thinking in terms of introducing a new Local Government Bill because the fundamental problem, which other Deputies have addressed, is the low level of responsibility given to local councils, not just the new four in Dublin but throughout the country. It seems that this Minister in a progressive way in the last couple of years has given by regulation more and more areas of authority for reserved and executive powers at local level. But it seems necessary to look at the whole area countrywide.
If we end up with four local authorities, there are services such as the fire service and water service, for example, which the city council will effectively be responsible for in these three new counties. Perhaps we do need a reasonably tight control in this area. However, I would have reservations about this. Some of our successors may look at the Dublin area again and say that a single local authority would make sense because it is a single cultural and economic entity.
The whole reason for this Bill must be questioned because many Dublin people are unhappy with it. We do not have four Dublin football teams, we have a single team. It goes all the way through our local culture and it raises questions. Dublin City Council will have great difficulties in relation to housing, which we have just discussed, whether the Minister will have effective power to make the Dublin city manager do things in the interest of the city council which he does not want to do.
First, the Minister's power here is nothing new. It is to be found in many Acts over the years. For example, such powers are included in the Local Government Act, 1991, the Abattoirs Act, 1988, the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1978 and the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974, and there are powers of direction in the Planning Acts. Such powers have been contained in legislation down through the years. It has been found necessary as a safeguard; but it is a tribute to the good relations that have developed between local authorities and various Ministers for the Environment that these powers have been seldom used. It is not possible to detail the instances that might require the use of this provision, but it might be needed to ensure there was no undue delay in implementing the arrangements for transfer of local authority housing and land or in relation to the extra municipal areas.
Several speakers, including Deputy Gilmore, asked on Second Stage that I would ensure that there would be no delay in the process. A power of direction provides the necessary mechanism to ensure that priority is accorded to this task and that there is no loss of impetus in bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion. The same could be said about Deputy Keogh's amendment. In order to demonstrate that I have no wish to continue the exercise of powers which are mainly necessary at the implementation stage, I would be happy to see the use of this provision limited to a reasonable period which would enable the process of reorganisation to develop. I will introduce an amendment on Report Stage to achieve that end.
Deputy Broughan raised a question which I should attempt to deal with because it relates to the wisdom or otherwise of proceeding in this way. There are two schools of opinion. One is that we would be better off with one authority covering Dublin city and county. If that is carried to its logical conclusion there should be one Department and one head, because there is much sense in having one person controlling everything. However, when one tries to work that in practice, there is a big democratic fallout.
The arguments were consistently made that the 78 member council was difficult to manage and that opportunities for participation were quite limited. It was asked why somebody living in Malahide should be free to make a decision affecting the lives of somebody in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown or vice versa. After much consideration it was decided to reorganise so that the local government system would be closer to the people and the elected members could relate more to their area.
I am not saying that there are not difficulties. Changing a culture is always difficult in this context; but it is an attempt to provide for a situation where the size of a local authority, its relevance to the local community and the say of locally elected members is enhanced. It is now too late in the context of this Bill to go back to what the situation might be if we had never decided to go down this road. The committee sat for years, came up with a recommendation and a process of reorganisation was put in place. That report led to the stage at which we are now and we want to get down to the task of ensuring that it operates as effectively as possible.
In relation to the amendments, it is necessary as I said, to ensure that the implementation is dealt with within a reasonable time scale. The powers of direction the Minister has will only have a lifetime which extends over that period and no further.
It is all right for the Minister to say that the process in which we are involved has gone too far for any change to be made to the recommendation to have four local authorities in Dublin. I believe and predict that within a comparatively short period of time this legislation will have to be looked at again. It is nonsense to have four local authorities for Dublin.
I am not going to repeat what I said on Second Stage. Deputy Broughan spoke after me on Second Stage and supported what I had said. I have the pleasure of speaking after him now and effectively supporting what he has said today. It is nonsense to have four local authorities for Dublin. We are in a difficult situation because the Minister is effectively asking us to buy a pig in a poke. We are told that we are going to have regional authorities, the creation of which will satisfy some of our reservations in relation to co-ordination. We cannot be expected to accept that in advance of the publication of the Minister's proposals in circumstances where we know nothing about it.
I had an amendment to another section in relation to the Liffey Valley. I am concerned that because of the division of these councils along the line of the Liffey, sufficient co-ordination will not be obvious and people will not be inclined to look at the interests and problems of the Liffey Valley as a whole. It is for that reason that I had hoped to propose an amendment at a later stage, but I was informed that it had been ruled out of order because of a financial provision. I will be given an opportunity to reconsider it on Report Stage.
The Liffey Valley is important, not only from the point of view of Dublin but from the point of view of the country. It has been described as our valley of the Loire, and there is some truth in that. It has tremendous potential. Unless something else is done, on the basis of the Bill before us the division of Dublin into four councils will not be to the advantage of the Liffey Valley. I am saying to the Minister that when weakness is recognised, it is as well to proceed from that basis rather than saying that the process has gone too far and there is nothing we can do about it.
At no stage during this debate did I say that the process had gone too far.
That was the inference.
To put that beyond doubt, this process was approved in the reorganisation legislation in 1985, the Local Government Act in 1991 and on the Second Stage reading in the Dáil in the last few weeks. We are entitled to debate the Committee Stage of this Bill. It has been reinforced by successive decisions of successive Governments and supported. Therefore, there is no question of interpreting my reply to Deputy Broughan as saying that we have gone too far. These are democratic decisions taken by both Houses of the Oireachtas and constitute solid approval for this course of action.
There is a contradiction in what Deputy Currie is saying when he refers to the Liffey Valley. One of the arguments for the establishment of three local councils in Dublin was to ensure that decisions in regard to planning would be taken on a more local basis. I am not sure that his attempt to bring the regional authorities into this is necessarily how these matters should be resolved.
It is important to note that throughout this debate strong references were made time and again in relation to planning, of the need to ensure that people elected to local councils could not make these decisions if there was a more local situation. That is what we are trying to create. No matter what we say about these decisions, they were not taken at central level; they were taken by locally elected members. It is the democratic wish of the council that such decisions would be made.
The debate here has been about not giving the Minister power to direct. But I have received deputation after deputation from County Dublin asking me to intervene. At the same time Deputies in this House tell me I should not have directional powers, powers of intervention. It is important to try to bring about some sort of overall position. These decisions were not taken by me. They were taken by democratically elected members locally, representing the people.
We are talking about a direction dealing with the implementation of this legislation. I agree with what I understood Deputy Brown to be saying in relation to the need for a greater Dublin council. When we were debating the 1991 legislation I argued that what we needed was a greater Dublin council with smaller local authorities based on the communities which they were serving. These would be authorities about the size of the existing Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation, with a local authority for Tallaght and for each of the various areas around the county. However, that is history now. That formula was not adopted by the Government. I have grave reservations about how well this formula of four local authorities will work in practice, but it is what was legislated for in 1991.
It must be acknowledged that notwithstanding the reservations about its workability, both the elected members and the management of what will now become the three new county councils have very enthusiastically set about implementing the 1991 legislation. The elected members devolved all of the various reserved functions of Dublin County Council to the three new area committees, the three area managers produced their report on time, all of the things that had to be done at a local level were done.
I am at a loss to understand why the Minister needs to make provision in this legislation for giving specific directions and instructions to both the managers and the elected members of those three authorities. Those three authorities come to this process with a track record of co-operation in the reorganisation of County Dublin. They have in many ways been ahead of the Minister in pushing the thing forward. The members of those three authorities know very well how unworkable the old Dublin County Council had become, so why is there a need now to have these instructions and directions built into it? Perhaps the Minister might give us some examples of where he expects to have to exercise this power? Where does he see the lack of co-operation coming that he will have to issue a direction or an instruction?
There has been no evidence of lack of co-operation to date. Is the Minister anticipating doing things under this legislation which we at local level have not yet anticipated ourselves? Is he reserving to himself some residual power in anticipating a situation where there may be some resistance from the local authority? He has said that he is prepared to put a time limit on it. I am not sure that this gives me a great deal of comfort because I do not see why this is necessary at all, particularly in a situation where there has been so much co-operation to date.
It would be wrong of me not to put on record my support for this legislation. In the context of the need for local government reform in the greater Dublin area, no matter what system is devised there would always be a feeling that the right system had not been adopted. Nearly 550,000 people live in the Dublin County Council area, people who are looking for greater involvement across the board in planning. It is no use saying one thing and doing another. We are just about to conclude our development plan in regard to which decisions were taken by 78 councillors from places as far north as Balscadden and Balbriggan and as far south as Dún Laoghaire.
In my own area some very controversial decisions were taken in planning in relation to Donabate, River Valley in Swords, around the airport, Malahide and Lucan. In making many of those decisions the vital votes were cast by people who had perhaps never been in the area, who did not even know the area. They were living 30, 40 or 50 miles away. These people took decisions which would affect the lifestyle of the people living in those areas. There are faults in this legislation. I will have problems and Fingal Council, which has the lowest commercial base of the three councils, will have problems in relation to finance. Nevertheless, despite it faults, we in the Fingal area have decided to run with this legislation to see whether it brings about greater accountability and gives greater control to the people.
As I said earlier in relation to planning, the great cry coming across through the media and through community and residents' associations is that those how are elected by the people of the area should make the decisions for that area. When the size of each council is reduced, when the Fingal area will have perhaps 24 councillors, when Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire will have perhaps 26 councillors each, they will have to take decisions, stand over those decisions and go before the electorate on the basis of those decisions. They cannot blame unpopular decisions on representatives living many miles away. It is a step forward. It would be wrong of me not to intervene at this stage in support the Minister's view in this regard, despite all the difficulties ahead of us in relation to this legislation.
Are we running out of time? The last speaker talked about bringing planning close to the people, about local people taking the decisions. I agree with that. I believe in the old cliché that planning is for people. The more involvement there is of ordinary people in the planning process, the better it is. It should not be handled by some remote Minister or civil servant. My proposition was not just for one council in Dublin. I made this clear on Second Stage. I support a system of district councils representing different areas in Dublin, where the local councils would be close to people, where local people and local democracy would be involved, unlike the system that many people have been proposing.
My objections were not based on that. I am not a councillor and I deliberately decided not even to go to the first stage of being a councillor. Councillors may feel that they have a vested interest in defending this system, but my experience would not lead me to praise either the old county council or the old corporation. In my experience they are very inefficient and in relation to planning decisions they leave a lot to be desired. I am not saying that I am in favour of the system that was in place, but I want to see a change that would be even more democratic and more in the interests of Dublin as a whole in terms of co-ordination.
Two more Deputies have indicated that they wish to speak. Do the Members want to finish this section or leave it until tomorrow?
This section or the amendments?
We are dealing with the section because the amendments are being taken together.
We will finish it if we are sensible.
I do not want to get involved in rewriting history. I said on Second Stage that this is essentially about reorganisation and in that context I am looking at the nuts and bolts of the Bill at this Stage. We have already debated the rights and wrongs of the Bill as a whole. I would like to return to what the Minister said about the amendments, when he pointed out that these powers are not new and are seldom used. He said that it is not possible to indicate exactly when the powers might be used and he then gave examples of instances where the powers could be used. I accept the Minister is saying that on Report Stage he may limit the powers he has in these sections, but he should admit that the instances where he might have to use these powers are so few as to make these sections irrelevant and he should consider deleting the powers altogether.
Deputy Doyle indicated that she wished to speak.
I will pass.
Is amendment No. 7 being pressed?
Yes.
I have had the experience in the last few weeks of having deputations from different parts of the country, including deputations from Dublin city and county, and I believe that the problems outlined by Deputy Gilmore are being solved in the way he believes them to be. It is important that this power of direction would be retained in the Bill, but, as I have made clear, only for the implementation stage. I will prepare an amendment which would take account of that. I would inform my colleagues that there are differences of opinion and that adjudications have to be made. It is not simple.
Deputy Gilmore is pressing his amendment, but I would make the point that under Standing Orders we should be finished at 7 p.m.
I am sure Deputy Gilmore is aware of that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
The Select Committee adjourned at 7.5 p.m.