Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1994

Vol. 140 No. 4

Local Government Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Ms Honan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, subsection (1), lines 41 to 43, and in page 11, lines 1 to 4, to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) and substitute the following:

"(d) is a member of either House of the Oireachtas, or"

This amendment relates to Members of both Houses holding the dual mandate. I realise there are many different opinions on this. This morning I acknowledged that under the Bill's provisions some Members of both Houses are prevented from being members of local authorities. I believe many provisions of this section are not acceptable. If all Oireachtas Members were debarred from membership of local authorities, the Minister would create a real distinction between the role of central Government and local government. The Minister is excluding certain people from local authority membership, many of whom would never take up such a position. The Second Commission on the Status of Women called on all political parties to eliminate the practice of the dual mandate. It felt that not only was this a gender issue but it would also enable more individuals, including more women, to participate as political representatives and would be a healthy development for democracy. I realise that some Members do not support my view on the dual mandate.

The Progressive Democrats believe it is necessary to establish the credibility of local government. Prohibiting Oireachtas Members from membership of local authorities would help to establish local government in its own right. The General Council of County Councils has spoken of the adverse impact on local government of the dual mandate system, under which up to 60 per cent of Members of Dáil Éireann are also members of local authorities. This is one of the weaknesses of the local government system.

Mr. Howard

I oppose both the section and Senator Honan's amendment. This section must be viewed in relation to the section 5, which states that eligibility for local authority membership is open to "every person being a citizen of Ireland or ordinarily resident in the State who has reached the age of 18 years and is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 6...". We now come to the disqualifications.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

We should dispose of the amendment first.

Mr. Howard

The amendment adds another disqualification. If I may speak about one disqualification I think I should be entitled to speak about all of them.

Acting Chairman

You can speak on the section and then refer to them.

Mr. Howard

That may be too late. I know there is a dilemma here. I will speak on the amendment. I oppose the excessive regulation I find throughout the Bill. I oppose prohibitions which interfere with the right of citizens to choose those they consider best entitled and qualified to represent them. According to one school of thought, the status of local authorities is enhanced by the presence of Oireachtas Members. I am not advancing this as my main argument. My principal objection to Senator Honan's amendment — this also applies to what the Minister is proposing in the section — is that it is an unnecessary interference with the right of the citizen to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. It strikes at the very fundamentals of the democratic process. Henry Ford was reputed to have said that one could buy any colour of car one liked as long as it was black. There is a denial of choice implicit in this and, therefore, it interferes with the first principle of the operation of the democratic system.

I also believe that enterprise in Ireland is over-regulated and suffocated by bureaucracy and interference by Government. Progress will never be achieved until bureaucracy and Government get out of people's way at every level. This runs counter to that belief.

I read, only yesterday, a report on the amazing level of progress in New Zealand at economic and local political level in the past two years. It occurred because the New Zealand Government scrapped a battery of regulations and restrictions which applied to development and local politics. The Government simply got out of the way and allowed the people to respond. I believe that the same will happen here in a positive and progressive way if we allow it. I have outlined the two principal reasons I am opposed to the amendment and to what is implied by other aspects of the section.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): Having given careful consideration to this matter, I have concluded that a blanket prohibition on dual membership would not be appropriate at this time. Such a prohibition is not the norm in most other European countries and would have a severe impact on the continuity of local authority membership given the present level of overlap.

Instead, the Bill provides for the further extension of the process, begun in 1991, of excluding a range of public office holders. This and the related provision to preclude Oireachtas Members from being local authority cathaoirligh and leas-chathaoirligh also serve as a signal in favour of separate local and national representation as a generally desirable objective.

The General Council of County Councils made a submission to the Minister and me last week in relation to the Bill in which it wished to make clear that it considers there should be no amendment to sections 6, 25 and 26 of the Bill. I propose to maintain that position.

To those who may have reservations on this matter, I would point out that it was against recommendations in the Barrington report, a Council of Europe report and last year's report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and of the views of local authority members who are not Oireachtas Members that an examination of the dual mandate was carried out in the first instance. A blanket prohibition on dual membership would not be appropriate at this stage.

Ms Honan

Is the Minister saying it was against the recommendations of the Barrington report, the commission and the Council of Europe report that there should be a dual mandate or is that why he examined the question of the dual mandate? It was my understanding that the Barrington report, the Second Commission on the Status of Women and the Council of Europe recommended the abolition of the dual mandate.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): It was because of the recommendations of the three reports that we carried out——

Ms Honan

They were for the abolition of the dual mandate.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Yes, and we carried out an examination based on their reports.

Ms Honan

I thought the Minister was saying they were against it. I listened to what my colleagues and the Minister said on the matter. Obviously, the Minister is in some way agreeing with it, such as precluding certain people and Members of this House from being cathaoirligh and leas-chathaoirligh of local authorities. However, this would strengthen the role of local authorities and there would be a clear division between the role of local authorities and central Government.

If we do not have huge reform in local government, people feel they can also be members of local authorities because not a great deal is demanded from them since the functions and powers of local authorities are so restricted due to the lack of finance we talked about this morning. However, the abolition of the dual mandate would enhance local authorities. If all Members of the Oireachtas were prohibited from being members of their local authorities, then at least it would be seen to be fair. As the General Council of County Councils said, many members of local authorities who are not Members of either of these Houses are in favour of it but, obviously, we are seen as having a vested interest in maintaining it.

I agree with the recommendations of the commission and if the Barrington report and the Council of Europe report recommended it we should listen to them. If we moved towards further reform of local government then it might be more acceptable.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and agreed to.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

I respect Senator Honan's point of view in relation to this and it is an advantage of the Seanad that we can honestly express our feelings on legislation although we may not always agree with each other.

Every Irish citizen who has reached the age of 18 years is told they can vote for anybody unless they fall into one of these 11 categories of people who are disqualified from being a member of a local authority. That flies in the face of the basic principles of democracy. I accept some of the categories, for example, section 6 (1), (k), (l), (m) and (n) because they deal with people who are in conflict with the law or have been imprisoned. However, since the people described in section 6 (1) (a), (b) and (c) are very unlikely to put their names forward to be members of local authorities, there is no necessity to include them in this legislation. It should be left to the question of free choice.

Section 6 (1) (d), (e), (f) and (g) and section 6 (3) (a) and (b) cover a total of nine categories of people for whom I find no justification for telling an elector they cannot vote for them. I want to register my position on this: it is a totally undemocratic approach for a House of Parliament to take in relation to a lower elected body.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Howard

Section 11 (4) relates to the filling of a casual vacancy on a local authority. In some councils this has given rise to squabbles, to put it at its mildest.

Mr. D. Kiely

Clare in particular.

Mr. Howard

Yes, and I have first hand experience. While I will continue to express my opposition to over-regulation within the Bill, I believe this is one situation in which a regulation could be justified. We should adopt the system that is used when vacancies occur in the European Parliament where the seat would go to the party that lost the seat. It would be a sensible and civilised means of dealing with these situations as and when they arise. I would like the Minister to say why what has been shown to be applicable and successful in relation to the European Parliament should not also apply to a local authority. I am sure the Minister has a good answer.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I have no easy answer to this issue. I understand that in the Dáil the Minister gave an undertaking to the different parties to look at it. As you know, in most counties there is an arrangement where, if a Fine Gael member dies, another Fine Gael person goes on to the council, and the same applies to Fianna Fáil. A difficulty always seems to arise where a vacancy created by an independent member has to be filled. There is also an arrangement where the last person defeated in a poll may be co-opted onto the council. Every county has its own arrangements and agreements in this area. I know the Minister was not particularly anxious to interfere in operations at local level as to how casual vacancies would be filled, and neither was I, but I will bring it to the attention of the Minister. There is no easy or definite answer to that. The system we have in my own county is that if a person from a political party dies or leaves the council, the vacancy is automatically filled by a person from that party.

Mr. Howard

Civilised people.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Civilised people.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 35 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together. I call Senator Honan to move amendment No. 2.

Ms Honan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 15, lines 1 to 4, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) The term of office of the members of every local authority elected at the elections referred to in subsection (1) shall, in respect of each town mentioned in columns (1) to (3) of the Sixth Schedule, terminate in the year specified in the heading of the relevant column of that Schedule. Elections of members to local authorities shall then be held every five years after the year in which each term of office terminates.”

The Minister is proposing to extend the life of county councils elected in 1991 by two years — from 1996 to 1998. The reason given is that he wants all local authority elections to be held on the same date from 1998 onwards. The Progressive Democrats do not believe it is necessary to hold all local authority elections on the same day and that it might be preferable to hold them on different years.

This amendment is similar to other countries where various sub-county authorities need not necessarily have their elections on the same day. As a party we are opposed to the notion that the 1996 county council elections would be postponed for two years. This shows a certain amount of disdain for the local government system. It is something that was decided by central Government after the people were given an choice in 1991 to select their local representatives for a period of five years. If we want to improve and reform the local government system with the intention of strengthening it, then this is not a very good move. It interferes with the whole system of democracy in that the public voted in 1991 to elect for a period of five years councillors who are now being given an additional two years by the Minister. As a party we have an interest in having the elections held earlier. The 1991 local elections were the first that we were able to contest and we had a certain degree of success.

Mr. D. Kiely

That is true.

Ms Honan

We look forward to contesting other local elections as soon as possible. We feel that Governments tend to be afraid of local elections because they feel the electorate might want to give them a little shock and they might not be as successful as the opposition.

Mr. D. Kiely

We actually enjoy a challenge now and again.

Ms Honan

I know Fianna Fáil lost seats in the last round of local elections and maybe they are afraid something similar will happen in 1996 when they are in Government. People should be given a chance to vote for their local councillors after a five year period. It is not acceptable to postpone the elections for two years.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): There appear to be all sorts of conflicting views on when the next elections to all local authorities should be held. Senator Honan seems to be suggesting that local elections should be held in four out of five years. This would mean we would have elections to different towns in each of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. While I am aware that systems of this type operate in some other countries I cannot see that it would have any particular advantage for our own system. On the other hand I can foresee some possible disadvantages. For example, there is bound to be a degree of additional overhead costs and work involved in holding elections more frequently, even if the total number of elections does not increase. There would also be more frequent chopping and changing on other bodies to which local authorities make appointments — health boards, harbour boards, vocational education committees, regional authorities and local authority associations to name but a few. I could not contemplate such a change without consulting all the bodies which would be affected. Having different local authority elections in different years would probably reduce the overall national focus on them and would not, therefore, be conducive to enhancing the status or general public awareness of local authorities. The amendment would also put back elections for some towns for six years. For this reason, and the fact that I am not aware of any significant demand for a change in this direction, I am unable to accept Senator Honan's proposal.

Also I would like to throw in the suggestion in the recent submission of the General Councils of County Councils, which all Senators will have read, that the next elections to local authorities should be held in 1999. Clearly, there is a divided view on this and it is difficult to satisfy everyone. I am satisfied that the provision in the Bill that elections to all local authorities will be held in 1998 constitutes the best balance of all factors and I will be adhering to this proposal.

Ms Honan

I thank the Minister for his reply but I do not agree with him. One of the points he made was that various appointments to health boards, vocational education committees and harbour authorities would have to change if the composition of local authorities changed. That might not be a bad thing. On many bodies when people have served two years, they may have put forward all their good ideas and a change might not be a bad thing. I cannot understand the Minister's difficulty with postponing some elections and having them run for a six year period. This year's elections for town commissions and urban district councils are being held nine years after the last ones.

If I am not mistaken, this morning the Minister asked if we were suggesting moving from five years to six years, and he said that was totally unacceptable. Yet, when we have had a nine year gap between elections for urban district councils and town commissions, I do not think a change from five to six years is a huge step. It is important that when people are voting in local elections they know how long the authority will last. If they put people in for a five year term, then that is how long they should be there. The time should not be extended.

The Minister said different people have different views on this. Our party's view is that the elections to county councils should be held in 1996 as was originally promised, and I stand by that decision.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I remind Senator Honan that the Progressive Democrats were in Government with Fianna Fáil in 1990 when the elections were postponed and in 1991 when they were postponed indefinitely. No party has a whiter than white record on the postponement of elections. We were criticised in the Seanad this morning and in the Dáil during the week for the fact that town elections have not been held for nine years. It would not be acceptable to defer some of them again for six years.

We have decided that from 1998 all elections will be held every five years. The Minister has also removed the power of the Minister to defer elections, a power that has been used by a number of Ministers in the past. In future no Minister or Government will be able to defer elections. That is a good provision.

Mr. McDonagh

The Minister has anticipated my question. I intended to ask if we would definitely have the local elections in 1998 or did the Minister still have the power to defer them. The Minister has said he does not.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): No, he does not have that power. We can start our preparations for 1998.

Mr. McDonagh

We will prepare now for 1998.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): We will also invite you to Wexford for the '98 celebrations.

Mr. Howard

It will be an appropriate year to go there.

The Minister has, through an amendment in the Dáil, divested himself of the power to defer elections.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): A generous man.

Mr. Howard

Yes. What is the procedure now for postponing local elections?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): There are no procedures to postpone elections. They must be held every five years.

Mr. Howard

Except by an Act of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Obviously it would require a change in legislation and I cannot see that happening.

Ms Honan

I welcome the Minister's assurance that the Minister will no longer have the power to postpone elections.

The Minister said that when my party was in Government with Fianna Fáil the elections were postponed. They were postponed on the basis that there would be substantial reform of local government. This Bill does not go far in achieving such reform. I remind the Minister that it was on the initiative of the Progressive Democrats that the Barrington Commission was established to carry out a review and make recommendations for reform. Many of those recommendations are not being acted on in this Bill. I agree that no party is whiter than white but I wanted to put the record straight.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 14 agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McDonagh

The Minister is putting the cart before the horse in this section. It would be better to defer the alteration of the town boundaries for electoral purposes until it is known what new structures will be established at sub-county level. There has been much discussion of the changes that have taken place. I understand that in Ballinasloe only five houses were brought in under the new arrangement. This is hardly the stuff of which borough councils are made.

Under the present proposals the newly elected members of the town councils will be unable to represent the interests of a significant number of the people who elected them. It would be wiser to delay the alteration of boundaries until everybody concerned clearly understands what form the sub-county local government structure will take. People outside might vote in these elections although they might never get inside the boundaries. What if the commission decides not to extend the boundaries?

Members have referred to the saga of election postponements in 1991, 1992 and 1993. The Barrington report was indecisive. Three years have been wasted and little has happened. We are being given the structure first and I believe we should wait. That is the reason for my party's opposition to sections 17, 18 and 19.

Mr. Howard

I support Senator McDonagh's argument. There is enormous detail in section 17 and I question the value of including such detail. A committee will be set up to examine local government. The sub-county structure has yet to be defined — what shape it will take, its area of jurisdiction and so forth. It would be wiser to wait until there is general agreement on the sub-county structure. The Minister should omit the mass of detail included in this section until that situation is clarified and we are offering him the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The 1991 census showed that of the 80 town local authorities in the country — boroughs, urban districts and town commissioners — 62 had outdated boundaries which affected a population of over 100,000 people. The Minister decided that as many of these people as possible should be enfranchised before the forthcoming elections and that those who have de facto residence in the urban area should be able to vote in the June elections.

In January this year he asked the managers responsible to review the boundaries of the 62 towns with a view to having them altered for the election in order to bring the built up areas within the town boundary. To date, there are locally agreed proposals for boundary extensions in respect of 56 of the towns concerned. In the case of five towns it was agreed locally not to extend the boundaries, and Senator Belton outlined the reasons for that decision earlier.

Would the Senators prefer that the people living in the areas concerned remain disenfranchised? I do not wish to see them disenfranchised and that is the reason for decisive action being taken to extend the boundaries. Furthermore, local reaction has been warm and work on the proposed extensions was undertaken with great purpose. The Minister first asked the county managers to look at the extension of the town boundaries. The proposals were submitted to the local authorities and agreement was reached. In some cases agreement on the boundaries involved much negotiation between urban and county councils.

In my area people who live just outside the boundary were actively seeking to be included within the boundary. Obviously there is an active movement in urban areas to extend the boundaries. People were unhappy at being disenfranchised for many years. In many cases they were obliged to pay rent, water and service charges to the urban councils while they were not in a position to vote for the members of the council. With the exception of the five areas I mentioned earlier, there is general agreement among county councillors and urban councillors and, more importantly, the local people that the extension should take place and it is generally welcome. I hope Senator McDonagh is not suggesting these people should not be allowed to vote in their own urban area.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McDonagh

I object for the same reasons given on section 17.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 19.

Question, "That section 19 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.

SECTION 20.

Acting Chairman

As amendment No. 2 has been negatived, amendment No. 3 cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Question, "That section 20 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Howard

My question relates to section 22 (2) (s) — the "election of the same person in more than one electoral area". I ask the Minister to explain how the dilemma is resolved at present, how it is proposed to be resolved in the future and if any change is intended.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The position is that the person has to opt for one or the other.

Mr. Howard

Then there is no change?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): No change.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Ms Honan

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 22, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) or of the Electoral Act, 1992, any person who reaches the age of eighteen years before the election date shall, not less than 12 days before an election, be entitled to have their name added to the supplement to the register of electors.".

I put down this amendment because at present anyone omitted from the register of electors can exercise the right to have his or her name included on the supplementary register up to 12 days before an election. This is not possible for 18 year olds; the determining date for them is the date the register came into operation. If a person reaches the age of 18 years by the election date he or she should have the right to be included on the supplementary list. I ask the Minister if he sees the validity of this argument. At present someone who is 18 at the time of the election is precluded from voting because he or she was excluded from the register and does not have access to the new supplementary register facility.

Mr. Howard

I support Senator Honan. When discussing section 5 we agreed that any citizen of the State having attained the age of 18 years should be entitled to vote. We should fully facilitate the right of everyone to cast his vote at the election. I recognise there must be some date in advance of the election at which the list must close, but we must do our utmost to accommodate people. There is considerable merit in this amendment and I support Senator Honan.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): This amendment would create an administrative nightmare and it may be impossible for those charged with the preparation of the register of electors for local elections to implement it. The administrative difficulties are quite separate from any questions of principle involved and there are serious questions to be addressed in that regard.

The amendment proposes that a person who reaches the age of 18 years before the election date shall be entitled to have his or her name added to the supplement to the register of electors provided for by section 15 of the Electoral Act, 1992. The supplement is a mechanism by which electors who are inadvertently omitted from the original register may have their names restored during the currency of the register.

The essential requirement for inclusion in a supplement is that an applicant must have satisfied the requirements for inclusion on the original register, in other words, for the purpose of the supplement no account can be taken of subsequent occurrences such as change in address or the acquisition of citizenship. The supplement is designed solely to correct mistakes.

If it was accepted that a person should be entitled to vote immediately upon reaching the age of 18, the proper course would be to include the person on the register for that year with an indication that a voting entitlement would commence from a given date. This practice is adopted in a number of countries, including the UK. If those involved are to have the right to vote they should all be put on the register from the start and the right should not be dependent on a special application.

The effect of this amendment would be that a person aged 16½ years would have to be included on the draft register. It would also mean young voters going on the register would be specifically identified as young persons; not only that, but precise ages and birthdays would be published for all to see. Clearly this would leave them open to all sorts of unsolicited and undesirable offers and requests.

In the interests of fairness and to protect the integrity of the register, procedures identical to those applying to the ordinary register would have to be put in place. These include house to house inquiries, proper checking of eligibility, provision for public inspection of a draft list, the right to audience at revision counts, and where appropriate, appeal to the Circuit Court. I do not see that this procedure could possibly follow in the time available.

At this stage I am not convinced this approach should be adopted. We should weigh the matter carefully before deciding to go down that road. The supplement is an innovation in the registration process and will face its first practical test at the June elections. I ask Senators to encourage people in their constituencies to examine the register now and, if they find their names are omitted, to make application immediately to ensure they can vote in the elections.

The innovative supplement to the register of electors should be operated for the local and European elections to see how it works. I am not saying the Senator's idea is bad but I do not think it is feasible. The procedure under section 15 of the Electoral Act, 1992, will come into force at these elections. It should be examined thoroughly and perhaps at a later stage we can examine the Senator's proposal.

Ms Honan

I thank the Minister. I agree the supplementary register for the June elections is an innovation. His response indicates he is not against the principle of having 18 year olds on the register and that he will consider it. I am willing to withdraw the amendment if the practice in the UK and other countries could be adopted, as he suggested. Is he suggesting the thinking in the Department is that we will see how the supplement works in June and afterwards adopt a process to get 18 year olds on the register? They would obviously not be able to vote unless they were 18 when the election was held.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): We should examine how the system operates in June. After that I can assure the Senator we will examine the system she has put forward.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Ms Honan

On the understanding that the Department will examine the system and sees merit in it, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mooney

Section 23 (2) reads:

A person's name shall be taken to be on the register if it includes a name which, in the opinion of the returning officer or presiding officer, was intended to be the person's name.

I ask the Minister to clarify what happens in cases where names have been incorrectly put on the register, although it is patently obvious to whom the incorrect entry refers. Does the returning officer ultimately make the decision? The Minister may have had experience where someone may have been refused a vote because the brother or sister of the person involved may have been inadvertently included on the register. Can an appeal be made to the returning officer and does he or she have flexibility?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): An elector whose name is misspelt or changed on marriage would be allowed to vote.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 24.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 7 to 14, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 5 and all may be discussed together.

Ms Honan

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 22, subsection (1) (a), line 23, to delete "or urban district".

This amendment proposes that urban district councils should be maintained as one electoral area and that the Minister should not have the power to divide them into wards. At present, urban district councils have nine members and under this section the Minister would have the power to reduce the nine seats to smaller areas. I oppose this proposal.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): There is nothing new in this section. It consolidates the existing law in relation to electoral areas by bringing the different provisions together in a single section. These provisions are section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1941, which provides for electoral areas in counties, section 35 of that Act in respect of boroughs and urban districts and section 12 of the Local Government Act, 1991, in respect of county boroughs. Under these existing provisions all counties and county boroughs are divided into electoral areas, as are the boroughs of Drogheda, Sligo and the urban districts of Bray and Dundalk.

Senator Honan's amendment proposes to delete all reference in the section to urban districts. If accepted, this would mean that counties, county boroughs and boroughs could be divided into electoral areas but urban districts could not. It is worth making the point that there is no legal or practical distinction between a borough and an urban district. Their status and the range of functions which may be exercised by them are identical. While all the boroughs have 12 member councils, some of the larger urban districts also have 12 member councils. Given that this is the case, it does not make sense to provide for division of boroughs but not urban districts in electoral areas. Furthermore, the most recent census figures show a number of urban districts which are larger than the smallest of the boroughs. The deletion of the reference to urban districts in this section could lead to an anomaly where certain urban areas could be divided into electoral areas while some larger urban areas could not.

Ms Honan

I was talking about present urban districts which have nine seats and are not divided into smaller areas. I understand from this section that the Minister could subdivide these into smaller areas.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): That can be done under existing law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McDonagh

I move amendment No.6:

In page 22, subsection (1), between lines 28 and 29 to insert a new paragraph as follows:

"(c) The Minister shall only exercise his powers under paragraphs (a) and (b) on the basis of recommendations made by a statutory independent commission in relation to (i) the revision of local electoral area boundaries and (ii) minima and maxima number of members to be elected for each local electoral area."

No Minister should have the power to arbitrarily alter local electoral area boundaries. This process should be carried out in a fair and open manner and an independent commission should be consulted whenever such alterations are proposed. It should not be the prerogative of the Minister to make changes here. The process should be transparent, open and fair, as it is now open to political influence. I am sure no Minister or Government would want an instrument which could be politically manipulated. It is time to take the word "gerrymander" out of the Irish dictionary. This is a sensible amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Howard

I support Senator McDonagh to insert this new paragraph in section 24. Senator McDonagh used the term "gerrymander", but "transparency" is another term which is constantly used. It is important to have transparency. These proposals are to the Minister's advantage because no matter how objective a Minister or Government tries to be when adjusting the boundaries of local authority areas, he or she is bound to be accused of gerrymandering. As we said yesterday evening in relation to other legislation, it is to the Minister's advantage to keep this situation at arm's length. The job should be done by an independent commission and we have shown how it should be constituted and who would have an input. In the adjustment and extension of areas it is important that a Minister or the Government should not leave themselves open to the accusation that they did so to suit their party's interests. While I recognise the Minister's difficulty in accepting the amendments, the proposals are worthwhile. They are not being put forward in a partisan way, but in the most fair minded manner to safeguard the good name and reputation of all politicians involved in this exercise from Government down.

Mrs. McGennis

During the local government elections in 1985 County Dublin was divided into wards. Does this section attempt to do the same?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Yes.

Ms Honan

I support this amendment. It is important that the Minister cannot exercise his power except on the recommendations of an independent commission. The process must be seen to be fair and transparent, as Senator Howard said. Decisions must not be made for political reasons and we must have an independent commission.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): In the division of any local authority into electoral areas or the revision of such areas, Part V of the Local Government Act, 1991, will apply. This means that before making an order in this regard the Minister must consider the report of a statutory boundary committee. In preparing its report the boundary committee must consult the local authority. We are all in favour of transparency and gerrymandering will not happen. A substitute for section 32 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1991, would read: “(2) Before deciding whether to make an order under section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1994, in relation to a local electoral boundary, the Minister shall request a boundary committee to prepare a report...”.

Mr. McDonagh

Given what the Minister said, he seems to be going a long way towards what we suggested. Is it correct that he will act only after consultation with the commission?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Yes. Part V of the Local Government Act, 1991, requires an independent commission to report to the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 14, inclusive, not moved.

Section 24 agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. D. Kiely

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 29 April 1994, unless Senator Howard wants to sit late.

Mr. Howard

We are not entitled to upset the order of the House.