Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Allen: I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(e) procedures for full voting opportunities to polling station staff,".

Does the Minister plan to improve the position of polling station staff by way of regulation and to facilitate them in exercising their rights?

Mr. Cullen: As it stands, electoral law provides that a person employed by a returning officer who is registered to vote in a constituency at a polling station, other than the one in which he or she is employed, may be authorised to vote in any other polling station in the constituency. Where the person employed by the returning officer is registered to vote in a constituency other than the one where he or she is employed the person may apply for entry on the supplement to the postal voters list for the area where they are ordinarily resident. I am satisfied these arrangements meet the needs of those involved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Chairman: Amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, and amendment No. 25 are related and are to be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, to delete line 26.

This is the section which caused the Labour Party to oppose the Bill on Second Stage because we oppose the abolition of the provision for the direct election of city and county mayors. When the Minister's predecessor first presented his proposals for the reform of local government, the introduction of directly elected mayors and abolition of the dual mandate were really two parts of the same concept. When the 2001 Act was before the House, I was concerned and argued that the powers given to directly elected mayors were very weak and forced the issue to a division on both Committee and Report Stages.

What has happened to local government in recent years is that many of the powers of elected members have been shifted to managers. As the Minister said, we can revisit that during the debate on the environment Bill. Apart from that legislative shift, there has also been a shift in real terms which has been contributed to by strengthening of the management side of local government. On every local authority, in addition to the manager, there are five or six directors of services and, due to the various promotional arrangements negotiated by local authority trade unions, a big increase in the numbers of senior staff in local government.

Representatives of the chambers of commerce came before the committee yesterday and said that in 1999-2000 there was a 1.5% increase in local government staff, the following year it was 2% to 3% and for the following two years it has been 6%. I welcome local government having more staff, but there has been a huge increase in managers, which has strengthened the management side apart from the legislative provisions.

With the abolition of the dual mandate, there will be no full-time politicians in local authorities. There will be a strengthened full-time tier of management and exclusively part-time membership. Directly elected city and county mayors would have strengthened the elected side of local government and would have provided at least one full-time elected person who would probably be doing no more than riding shotgun on the manager. However, the operational dynamic has shifted so dramatically to the management side that this would have been a very important strengthening of the democratic side of local government. I regret this has been removed. It was wrong to do so and the Minister should reconsider the position. I suspect it happened for political reasons and also I suspect that a political assessment has been made by the Minister's party. In 2001, that party was high in the polls and it looked as if there would be a Fianna Fail city and county mayor everywhere. It looks different now, so we have a different decision. It is absolutely inconsistent with what the Government has been saying about local government, unless it has been done purely for electoral reasons.

I made a strong case to retain the direct election of city and county mayors and that it should go ahead in 2004, which will be important for the elections themselves. With the shift in powers to managers, increasing numbers of people are wondering if voting in the local elections makes a difference. If nothing else, the election of city and county mayors would generate an interest and excitement in the local elections which would increase the turnout and strengthen the elected side in local government. I expect there will be all sorts of teething problems and tensions, but that is in the nature of any new initiative. This would add another pillar to local government and it would be a positive development. We should stay with it and drop the provision removing the election of city and county mayors.

Mr. Cuffe: I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Gilmore. The removal of this provision represents the filleting of a very important Bill and I am bitterly disappointed by the proposal. I am obviously pleased by the removal of the dual mandate but the Bill has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. Of what is the Minister afraid? It is a core principle for my party that local government should be given powers and responsibilities. One need only look at Berlin or Boston, both of which have good models of working democracy and strong local government. We should consider the work done by people such as Rudolph Giuliani in New York or Pascal Maragall in Barcelona. The latter brought the Olympics to Barcelona. Denying counties and cities the right to directly elect their chief executives - their mayors - is attacking the heart of democracy and stifling local initiatives at city and county levels. I am bitterly disappointed by this decision.

At present, if one wants a decision at a local level one has to go to the Minister. To build a house a local authority has to go to Ballina or the Custom House. There is a stranglehold coming from the Minister's Department and officials - coming from above - denying local government the chance to have a real impact. The chance to develop policy in towns or counties is an incredible opportunity the Minister is nipping in the bud with this change in the legislation. He is subscribing to the una duce una voce school, saying he will call the shots along with his Cabinet colleagues rather than allowing local government to be empowered, as is traditional abroad. We have seen it most recently in London, with Ken Livingstone using the limited powers he has to make a difference. Nobody in Dublin, Galway or Limerick can make that difference because they do not have the powers. It is just a glorified position with a ceremonial chain and very few powers. I am bitterly disappointed that the Minister is filleting what had the capacity to be an incredible feat of empowering local communities. Along with many of my colleagues, I will oppose the filleting of a good Bill.

Mr. Allen: I am concerned that when we come to the local elections in 2004, we will have a very low turnout because people now realise that the powers of local authorities are being eroded on a monthly basis. We will discuss the Protection of the Environment Bill shortly and we will again see the power of councillors eroded with managers being given the power to raise charges. I presume the Minister has done that for very basic reasons, namely, that he is short-changing local authorities in terms of funding and he knows members will not impose charges in the run up to elections so he has given those powers to the managers. Basically, managers will be doing the work of the Minister in screwing the public for the charges to make up for the shortfall that is coming from the Department. The people are not fools and they see that local authority members have very limited powers. It is against this background of ongoing erosion of powers that there will be a very low turnout in next year's local elections.

What has forced the Government to change its mind on directly elected mayors in just 18 months? This exciting concept was introduced with a fanfare as something that would give new life to local authorities and their leadership. Suddenly everything changed and changed utterly. Like the other speakers, I believe a properly thought out policy on directly elected mayors would have brought great benefits to the whole local government system.

As I outlined in detail on Second Stage, it would have made the leadership and the elected members of local authorities more accountable to the people, would have made local authorities more accessible and visible and would have brought a modern governmental approach to city business. It would have given a stable leadership over a five-year term. Candidates running for the mayoralty would have had to bring forward policy ideas on local issues and local government reform and would have been seen as a focal point and a voice for the people over a five-year term.

Deputy Cuffe has given examples. I thought he had forgotten about Ken Livingstone for a while, but he eventually referred to him. Such a leader would represent his or her city internationally and most importantly would be independent and not subject to the diktats of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and its Minister. Naturally enough, managers are basically there to implement the policy that comes from the Custom House. A directly elected mayor would represent the people and be accountable and, as a result, they would steer an independent course.

I am extremely disappointed that this proposal has been removed. At a minimum, I thought the Minister would test the waters in the lord mayoralties of Dublin and Cork and see this system operate in two areas. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and let direct elections take place.

Mr. Morgan: I agree with the three previous speakers. It was with a heavy heart that I voted in favour of the Bill on Second Stage, particularly in light of the provisions of this section. I am totally in favour of ending the dual mandate, but this section is causing very serious problems not just for me but also for my party colleagues. When I first became a member of a local authority in 1999, the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, said he would strengthen local government and devolve more powers to local authorities. We have heard similar comments about giving more autonomy to local government from the Minister when he assumed office last year. However, in this section we see the complete opposite happening.

A directly elected mayor or chair would have given people the accountability they want. Mayors would have face the people every five years on the basis of their records. Unfortunately, that is not the case at present because in that position is an unelected autocratic county manager. As Deputy Allen said, these county managers are, in the main, just implementing the policy emanating from the Custom House. However, they are taking no cognisance of the nature of the area or its people.

This was adequately covered by Deputy Cuffe in highlighting how mayors in places like Barcelona and Mr. Giuliani in New York had been very creative. That could have happened here and would have been a powerful asset, not just to the big cities but also to towns and counties. It is very unfortunate that this opportunity will be lost with this section of the Bill. Far from strengthening local authorities, it is doing the complete opposite in gutting them. It is most unfortunate that the big arsenal of powers remains with county managers and the accountability element is missing. I support these amendments, which seek to delete the section.

Mr. Cullen: I genuinely welcome debate on this issue, into which, based on the contributions of Members not just today but also on Second Stage, many other issues have fed. In answer to Deputy Allen, if I have changed my mind, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have also gone in the opposite direction. Leaving aside the politics if the matter, there are a number of key points to which I gave consideration. If I was to make legislation on the basis of opinion polls, I would be very foolish because those polls are like anything else in life and can go up and down unpredictably. That would be a ridiculous approach. Although I do not like the idea of detaching a mayor in the context of the council, it is an arguable point.

The move by the former Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to allow for directly elected mayors was good, provided all the other elements were brought to bear at the same time in legislation. I accept what Deputy Gilmore has said. The balance has swung very much in favour of the executive. I can be accused of being in a very contradictory position myself on other legislation at present. However, any Deputy who faced the problem I face as Minister would probably do the same thing, because it is quite specific. I do not like doing it, but I feel I have no choice.

Mr. Morgan: It was the backbenchers that were doing that.

Mr. Cullen: No, I am talking about the other legislation. Deputy Cuffe referred to New York and Barcelona. Leaving aside the scale of such cities, let us remember that when the mayor of New York is elected he fires the police chief and hires his own. He does the same in respect of the fire chief and he hires and fires about 10,000 civil servants. I am not sure how well it would work in Ireland if a directly elected mayor of Cork was to have the right to fire all the civil servants and appoint his own people. However, that is what happens and the system works on the basis of the loyalty of the people to implement the mayor's policy. We have nothing approaching this. It would be wrong to create a titular head.

Mr. Allen: I did not mention New York.

Mr. Cullen: I know Deputy Allen did not mention it. I was referring to the comments of Deputy Cuffe. It would be wrong to create a titular head with no power. The city manager has all the power and has no relationship with the council as he or she is not a member. All of the power in the way the law is structured now rests on the executive side.

Regarding Deputy Morgan's point, I have heard this in all the debates. I do not know if we have good or bad councillors but from the debates none of them seems able to hold their managers to account. To suggest managers are getting away with actions which are detrimental to their areas is the fault of councillors; if councillors are not holding their managers accountable that is not my fault. There are many regulations holding managers to account.

These suggestions are unfair. Many managers work with their councillors and try to do the best for their areas. In principle we need to shift the balance and, coming out of this debate and the ending of the dual mandate, I am invigorated and excited by this. I hope that between us and outside assistance we receive we can reform this system going forward for the rest of the century, even if "reform" must be one of the most abused words in politics. Perhaps it is possible for a previously elected councillor being elected mayor for five years through the council system; there are all sorts of options in the system. However, one has to have a basis for giving someone a real job as opposed to a title - real control and the power to make changes as well as the ability to control the executive system. Simply naming them mayor for five years with no power to do anything for the five years---

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister saying his predecessor introduced a gimmick?

Mr. Cullen: No, I am not. The principle of what he was doing was a process but we have not reached the point where the other side of the equation is in place.

Mr. Allen: There was no follow through.

Mr. Cullen: No. There was a lot of follow-through.

Everyone uses the example of Ken Livingstone as mayor of London. He is not the mayor of London. That office still exists, with all the pomp and ceremony and the mayor would not cross the road to see Ken Livingstone. They are always fighting. Ken Livingstone is a sort of pseudo-Government layer of operation put in place by Government for London. That is not what we see mayors or councils as doing. He is almost like a Government Minister without portfolio put in charge of a city of 12 million people.

Mr. Cuffe: Is that what the Minister is afraid of?

Mr. Cullen: No, I am not.

Mr. Allen: He does not toe the line.

Mr. Cullen: Good luck to him and to his congestion charges. I do not have a problem with him but I do not use him as an example suddenly switched in from New York or Barcelona like Deputy Cuffe did. Let us get real.

Mr. Cuffe: Any town or city in mainland Europe---

Mr. Cullen: The big problem in Ireland, and one we need to debate, is that we have 114 separate local authorities for less than 4 million people and 84 planning authorities. These are severe problems.

Mr. Allen: I detect severe rationalisation.

Mr. Cullen: No, I am just posing this question. People often ask me what is slowing down their planning applications. There are real issues as we move from a 19th century country to the dynamic 21st century, with technology and so on. There are interesting debates to take place in this context and much of what we have discussed today feeds into a wider debate about local government.

If there is one issue that unites everyone on this Bill it is that of directly elected chairs. Sinn Féin and Deputy Ó Caoláin have taken a different view and I accept that - perhaps that party was not included on this - but the General Council of County Councils was vociferous about this and walking around the Dáil the general views of the vast majority of Members also became clear. I did not do this for that reason, however; I did so because, if the structure exists, the mayor should be elected by the people as they are, among the members of the council. The council should have the right to choose. It would be wrong to say one can be elected to a council but cannot aspire to become mayor of one's city as an elected member. That is wrong under the present circumstances. If one wants to get into changing the structures, the electoral system and the format of local government, those are different issues. As things stand, this is the right decision politically, across the spectrum, though some Members may have changed their minds as I did. Politically I accept there is an issue here---

Mr. Allen: The Minister said "deferred". In principle---

Mr. Cullen: As things stand this was a bad decision and the wrong way to go and that is why I am changing it. I am withdrawing it and that is the end of it and we are going with the dual mandate. I am responding to the arguments and giving a context.

It is simplistic to say one can overlay Barcelona or New York on Dublin or Cork. The systems of central and local government are radically different and it is the same for European countries. If we get the level of maturity required to be serious about local government and finance then there is a real chance for local government. If we do not do so, Deputies will continue to talk about Denmark and Spain and local swimming pools and so on. I have been there and know them well. However, nobody wants to deal with the other side of the equation. What they do not say is that such places have significant local taxation regimes. Houses in Denmark each pay €5,000 to €6,000 per household per year. That is why they have these facilities and why there is autonomy and decision making at local level. We would all accept that without control of money one does not have power; whoever holds the money holds the power in all walks of life. That is the maturity we have to bring into the local government debate.

We now have one of the lowest central personal tax rates in Europe. Personal tax in Denmark is high compared to what we pay, and yet they have massive local taxation as well. We need a maturity that is not there but which may emerge if we want to do exciting things with local government.

Mr. Allen: It sounds like a return to the 1970s.

Mr. Cuffe: We had it but you took it away in 1977.

Mr. Cullen: I agree. It was a terrible mistake. I have always said that.

Mr. Cuffe: I appreciate that.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister said yesterday that Fine Gael and the Labour Party had changed their positions on directly elected mayors. Deputy Allen can speak for Fine Gael.

When the 2001 Act was before the House we did our job. We put the Government's proposal to the test and tested its arguments. That is the job of the Opposition. The reason we opposed the specific proposal then was not because we opposed the concept. It was because what was proposed was a mayoral system which did not have the powers and functions we wanted it to have. We are not talking about New York, Barcelona or London, where a mayor has executive authority. The argument we put at the time was that directly elected mayors should have executive authority, although the extent of that power would have to be examined. The original concept, going back to Deputy Noel Dempsey's time as Minister, was that there would be co-decisions between mayors and managers. That was dropped when the Bill was introduced and we ended up with the mayors having some kind of review function. We made the criticism at the time and it is unfair of the Minister to represent that as being opposed to the principle of what was being done.

Mr. Cullen: What about the Deputy's colleagues?

Mr. Gilmore: The intention of the 2001 Act was that in 2004 we would have directly elected mayors, not in 114 local authorities but only in some 34 of them. It was not intended to apply everywhere. The mayors' positions would be full-time and they would have the right to review certain decisions and so on. A remit was set out for them.

The management side of local authorities has been enormously strengthened since the discussion about directly elected mayors began. In my local authority there are as many senior managers as there are members of the council and I am sure that is replicated in other councils. The managers function as a team and they are full-time. I have great respect for their ability, commitment and integrity. It is good that there is tension between the executive and the representational side of local government. It is a healthy thing. The problem in practice is that where one has in excess of 20 managers who are full-time and who function as a team - as one would expect them to function - they drive the entire system. One cannot have an adequate system of accountability. The current balance is wrong. With members of the Oireachtas being taken out of the equation the result will be a full-time, highly staffed and highly resourced executive with a representational side which is part-time, many of whose functions are taken away but who in theory have all kinds of policy making functions. A local authority may pass a motion that it is a nuclear-free zone but if a proposal for an incinerator comes in it has no say in the matter because it is now a decision for the manager. It is a total mis-match.

Directly elected mayors will provide an additional leg to the elected side which would stimulate the local elections. I agree with Deputy Allen that there will be a high degree of disinterest in the next local elections because of the perception that the powers have shifted so much to the management side. While it may be neat, it is bad for democracy. I noted what the Minister said about the number of local authorities. I can see where his thinking is heading and I do not like it. There is a big difference between having a system of local administration, which is the direction in which we are heading and having a system of local government in which the people are involved.

Mr. Cullen: Deputy Shortall said yesterday that there should be a maximum of five local authorities in the entire country.

Mr. Gilmore: I did not hear that.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy can haul her over the coals.

Mr. Gilmore: I will reserve my judgment on that until I read the 'Blacks'. That may not be what she said. I will reserve judgment until I see what was said. Where the Minister is heading-----

Mr. Cullen: I am posing questions. I am genuinely not heading in any fixed way. I am throwing out legitimate questions which need to be properly debated.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister will reduce the debate if he takes out of the equation some of those who can contribute to the debate. One value of having the county mayors is that it gives an additional leg to the elected side. It is a full-time elected person in each local authority who will be elected by the people in an environment where there are in excess of 20 full-time senior managers with no full-time elected person in local government.

Mr. Cullen: I want local government-----

Mr. Gilmore: A mayor is also somebody who will ride shotgun on the manager which is desirable. It is also important that an elected representative draws his or her mandate from the entire county or city. One of the problems with local government is the tendency for people to look after their particular patch without seeing the bigger city or county picture. I am aware that the Minister has views on "NIMBYism" and so on. It would contribute to better decision making within local authorities. This is going the wrong way.

As Deputy Allen said, it would be better if one decided to run the mayoral elections in a number of local authorities rather than to drop it altogether. I have the height of respect for the General Council of County Councils, LAMA and the AMAI but in every walk of life representative bodies tend towards the closed shop. It is in the nature of things. Professional bodies do it - everybody does it. It is their function to represent the feelings of their members but it does not necessarily follow that Government has to do it.

Mr. Cullen: I accept that.

Mr. Gilmore: It is also wrong of the Minister to say that members of local authorities are somehow precluded from being mayors. They are not. A member of a local authority could stand for the position of city and county mayor under the existing legislation

Mr. Cullen: I did not say that.

Mr. Gilmore: I know there is a fear in regard to high profile celebrity candidates but I think that is greatly exaggerated.

Mr. Cullen: So do I.

Mr. Gilmore: The public are capable of seeing through some millionaire in a T-shirt singing about poverty.

Mr. Allen: They would be well able to know the difference.

Mr. Cuffe: The Minister's criticism is somewhat misplaced. I used the big city examples because we are familiar with the characters.

Mr. Cullen: I was not being critical. I said the analogy did not stand up.

Mr. Cuffe: Even if one looks at smaller cities and towns on either side of the Atlantic there are good working models of mayors who are elected with a programme and a mandate to deliver over five years. They can be thrown out after five years if people do not like what they do. Neither do I believe in the hiring and firing of thousands of civil servants at the end of a programme.

Mr. Cullen: That is how it is done-----

Mr. Cuffe: Not on the European side.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, in the key staff areas they do.

Mr. Cuffe: Yes, at the upper echelons. I would be happy to get rid of the head of health, housing or policing if people do not like what they have delivered. It should not be a case of getting rid of 5,000 gardaí if one does not like what they do, the chief superintendent or the Commissioner of the force should have to go. The 20 key people to which Deputy Gilmore referred earlier have got to deliver along with the mayor's programme. I do not want to get stuck in the detail of that. I support the principle of those who are represented by the people for the people to deliver a programme within a given timeframe. They have put that programme before the people.

Things are very clouded in local government at the present and a low turnout is highly possible in next year's local elections. People do not believe local government can deliver. It is not possible for a local councillor to move a bus stop. If one tries to build a house one has to go to the Custom House. Almost any simple issue at local level has to spend many months in the pipeline in order to be delivered. If we gave a little more clout to local government we could achieve far more in a much shorter timeframe. I appeal to the Minister to try this with one or two cities or towns to see how it works over a period. I would be disappointed if this were taken out altogether because even in the smaller towns and cities whether it be in northern Europe, southern Europe or the United States there is a good principle of locally elected chief executives or mayors that deliver programmes and are held accountable to the electorate.

Mr. Morgan: The Fianna Fáil backbenchers are rascals for putting the poor old Minister is such an invidious position. His contribution did not sound convincing. I think I know where his heart is-----

Chairman: I appreciate the polite term the Deputy used in describing us.

Mr. Cregan: It was a term of endearment.

Mr. Morgan: It was not intended to be a term of endearment. I agree with the Minister that there are too many councillors who are not prepared to stand up to county managers or take them on because the manager is perceived to have all the power and they are afraid they will not have the potholes in their lanes filled etc. This is unfortunate.

Section 149 (1)(a) of the main Act, specifically says "including all functions in relation to employees in each of the local authority". This was for directly elected mayors and it included the hiring and firing of staff. I will seek to amend this to exclude this function from them at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately I cannot do it at this stage.

Mr. Allen: I think I am fair in interpreting what the Minister said about the proposals in the 2001 Act being premature. He made the case that there were no structures in place to see this through and that it is now being deferred until more comprehensive reforms are introduced. The Minister seemed to imply that there is a need for massive rationalisation in the number of local authorities and that we are going back to the pre-1977 norm where we will see the return of domestic rates and other local charges that are in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what is already in place.

I thought the Minister would agree, at least on a pilot basis, to run the elections in the cities of Dublin and Cork and test the waters and then introduce real reform by giving mayors executive functions and designating the powers of local managers to people in the position of director in chief. As Deputy Gilmore has said, the pendulum has swung the other way. It is professionals versus amateurs at this stage. The full-time team meet each Tuesday morning and plan for the next meeting of the council to outmanoeuvre and out-think the public representatives who are predominantly part-timers. The councillors are outmanoeuvred and do not have a real input. What has happened with recent legislation and will happen with legislation to come is pushing the pendulum to the extreme.

Mr. Kelleher: In my short experience on a local authority I have noted a huge imbalance in the area of county and city development plans. Representatives are depending on partial advice from managers and planners on their view of how a city or county should develop. There should be a mechanism whereby assistance is given to councillors to get independent advice. This is something we really have to address. The manager and his planning officials decide on and present a county development plan and explain it. Public representatives are largely part-time and do not have the support to have the plan independently verified or get a view from outside the council. While I am not an expert in city development or planning, I have views I would like to express. There does not seem to be sufficient support for councillors to critically analyse what is presented by planners and the county manager. It only happens once every five years and councillors should be able to access independent advice.

Mr. Cullen: I welcome what Members have said. My difficulty is that by engaging with colleagues and giving a view, it can gain currency and be suggested that this is what I am going to do. This is not what I intend. I am simply outlining issues that we need to discuss. I am not sure what all the solutions to these issues are and do not pretend to have them. It demands that we begin to seriously engage with them and we should leave the outcomes to our collective wisdom. I do not have specific position on a number of issues.

I agree with Deputy Gilmore as he backs up the point I have been making. I firmly believe that we need full-time local government representatives for many reasons, some of which overlap with the specific points he raised. That is the mechanism that can force many of the other changes in the balance between the executive and public representatives, resourcing etc. I remember the limited facilities Deputies had when I was first elected to the Dáil and it is like comparing chalk and cheese to what we have now. I feel Deputies should have more researchers etc.

The intention of the SPC system was that it would become a mini-cabinet. The members have never really exercised the powers of the SPCs, particularly when it comes to the budgetary process. The manager was supposed to be brought before this sub-cabinet that was empowered to drive the process. This has not happened. The fault does not lie on one side only. I am reviewing the SPC system. Many questions have been asked about where we will go with it. The IPA and others are involved in looking at this issue. I want to see an ability to drive and shape agendas, to have the ability to question and secure outcomes. While that was the principle of the chairs of the SPCs as the mini-cabinet, it has not worked in any real sense. The budgetary process of a local authority was empowered through the SPC system.

I do not want to prolong the argument. I am not inclined to accept the amendments and will not change my mind on this issue.

Mr. Gilmore: The SPCs and corporate policy groups are not working because there are no full-time mayors and there is no one to convene these groups. The county manager will not convene the CPG to weaken his authority. We are not going to agree on this. The Minister is dropping this for political reasons. He has offered no reasons, in local government terms, for doing so. This is a political decision to which the only appropriate response is a political one. Accordingly, I wish to put the amendment to a vote.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 8.

Tá

Níl

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, line 27, to delete paragraph (a).

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 18:

In page 6, line 28, to delete paragraph (b).

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, line 29, to delete paragraph (c).

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 20:

In page 6, line 30, to delete paragraph (d).

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Cullen: I move amendment No. 21:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

8.---(1) This Act may be cited as the Local Government (No. 2) Act 2003.

(2) The Local Government Acts 1925 to 2003 and this Act shall be read together as one and this Act shall be included in the collective citation 'Local Government Acts 1925 to 2003'.".

This is simply a technical amendment which will essentially re-title the Bill when enacted as the Local Government (No. 2) Act 2003. This arose because another local government Bill initiated as the No. 2 Local Government Bill, to regularise certain matters in relation to the bridge order and was published subsequent to this Bill. In the event, the (No. 2) Bill overtook this Bill and was enacted on 10 April. This just makes the technical correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allen: I move amendment No. 22:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.---Section 27(1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following new paragraph:

'(aa) At the poll for a local election no referendum shall be held.'.".

I am concerned that there has been a tendency in recent times to attach referenda to local elections. Local elections and European elections are held on the one day, and I presume this is also the plan for 2004. A referendum, when run in conjunction with local elections, can overshadow the local elections and take away from their importance, especially if the referendum is of a very controversial nature. It can lead to confusion among elderly people in particular when voters are faced with three different decisions at once. That is the reason I have put forward this amendment.

Mr. Cullen: The amendment proposes a change to section 27 to provide that it should not be possible to hold a referendum poll with a local election. While I appreciate the Deputy's sentiment in wishing to focus the attention of the electorate on the importance of local elections, I obviously cannot accept the amendment. Under electoral law it is open to the Minister of the day to hold any number of polls together.

While there is an argument that the electorate should not be over-burdened on polling day - and I agree - or that a referendum on a major issue should not be held alongside another poll, it is important to maintain flexibility. The 1979 local elections were held with the European elections, the 1994 town council elections were held with the European elections and a number of by-elections and the 1999 local elections were again held with the European elections and a referendum on local government. All polls had synergy between them on that day. Following that referendum, elections to local authorities must be held not later than the end of the fifth year after the year in which they were last held, and local polls will now fall within the time frame of the European elections, with the intention that they be held on the same day.

Chairman: Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Allen: Yes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Allen: I move amendment No. 26:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.---Section 63(1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following new paragraph:

'(aa) to carry out all functions including, but not limited to, local policing policy, education including pre-school education, reinstatement of local health committees, the distribution of lottery grants and local development including Leader programmes,'.".

This amendment is being put down as a marker. The whole area of local government reform should involve not only decentralisation but the devolution of powers to make local government more meaningful. I have set out some of the functions that should be considered for devolution within the overall reform of local government.

I will not go into each of them separately because I did so already on Second Stage but this proposal should be taken on board by the Minister. I ask for his views on some of the proposals in the amendment.

Mr. Cullen: There is a great deal of sense in what the Deputy is saying. He will probably be aware that, as we speak, a Cabinet sub-committee including myself, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is looking at many of these issues. I feel very strongly, as do other members of this committee, that many things happening outside of local government should be properly under the control of local government. These are but some of those issues outlined in the Deputy's amendment.

We need to look at this but this is not the Bill in which to do so. I do agree with the sentiment expressed by the Deputy. It is right and the Government recognises that. It is something we have already started to process in one specific way, but there are even wider issues involved. Many things come from the decision-making process within the Departments of central government that should properly be the responsibility of a local government structure with the autonomy to make decisions on a range of issues. One could probably say that every Department has some issues, bodies, agencies or whatever under its jurisdiction that should be directly responsible to the local government system. All of that will feed into the process we discussed earlier. I have great empathy with the Deputy's sentiment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Allen: I move amendment No. 27:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.---Section 5 of the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999 is hereby replaced in so far as the section relates to the limitation of election expenses and accordingly sections 72 and 75 of the Electoral Act 1997 are hereby revived to that extent.".

There is an anomaly here between what happens in general elections and local elections. In general elections we are subjected to a very strict regime in terms of spending limits, returns. With local elections, in contrast, there is no limit at all, to my knowledge or experience, on what can be spent. That anomaly should be rectified.

I note from what the Minister said on Committee Stage in the Seanad that he is looking at the whole question of expenditure limits in elections but I seek his assurance that people participating in the 2004 local elections will be subject to the same restrictions that are in place at present for persons running for the Dáil. I do not want it to be the case that the strength of the bank balance can dictate the strength of a campaign. Wealthy people could saturate a small area and have an impact on the outcome of a local election. The Minister should give us his plans to introduce limits for the 2004 election.

Mr. Kelleher: This is an important point and will have to be addressed rapidly. In the long term, with the abolition of the dual mandate, a party or individuals could decide to put up candidates in every ward in a constituency to the detriment of a Deputy, spending whatever they like. That has to be looked at before the local elections. There are four or five wards in my constituency and individuals, a party or a lobby group could run teams of candidates with massive resources and one is not even in the field to fight back because one is barred from running as a Deputy. The Minister will have to look at Deputy Allen's valid point.

Mr. Cullen: As I indicated, Deputies will agree the position we are in is pretty unworkable. We have moved from an unregulated system to a very regulated system. I am very interested in the local government structure, which works very well and is simple, transparent, accountable and fair. That is what the public wants. The figures from the last local elections indicate nothing like what Deputy Kelleher suggested could happen occurred, though that is not to say it might not happen in the future. I am working on the national electoral bill, which will obviously have consequences for this. However, I will not transpose that on to the local government system because it is disastrously wrong. I currently reviewing the electoral Act. I understand where Deputies are coming from and I want to conclude that as quickly as possible.

I have been clear that my view is that this is about transparency and accountability - where did a candidate get money, how much and from what source. Declaring all that is important to the public; limits are false.

Mr. Kelleher: As the local elections are every five years, they may occur during or just before Dáil elections. One could have a body or candidates spending endless amounts of money to predetermine the outcome.

Mr. Cullen: I agree.

Mr. Kelleher: A Dáil candidate is either not in the field or is curtailed by how much he or she can spend. That is completely unfair.

Mr. Cullen: I agree it should be the same for all public representatives. I am looking at this in the context of the national Bill and we will have to have a system that is the same for everyone.

Mr. Kelleher: It should be addressed before the election.

Mr. Cullen: There is pressure to get this done.

Mr. Gilmore: I agree with Deputy Allen's amendment. There should be limits on the amounts to be spent in a local election. I am disturbed by the Minister's strong hints at the removal of limits regarding the legislation for national elections.

Mr. Cullen: I am just giving a view.

Mr. Gilmore: As the Minister, his is the most important view around.

Mr. Cullen: It is my view. The issue for the public is who gave money, the source of that money and how much was given. That will lead to debate and it will be transparent. I do not want a situation such as in the last election, when, three months before the time frame we were lashing out promotional material. That is nonsense. If we are to have limits they should be realistic. My perspective, as is the perspective in other countries, is that the issue is not one of artificial limits. I probably will not be able to get rid of those but the core issues are who paid, who got what, how much and where did it come from.

Mr. Gilmore: The Minister is missing one critical principle, that of the level playing field. The reason limits were introduced was not just a matter of transparency - the reason for limits on spending was to ensure fairness in the electoral contest and that one would not have highly resourced parties or individuals buying their way into either local government or Parliament. That is why we have limits. There were practical and teething problems with the new system which irritated everyone. There are ways of sorting those out but the principle in an electoral contest is that there must be equality of opportunity between parties and candidates. The only way to ensure that is to have some form of "cosc" on parties or individual spending what they want. Otherwise we will go down the American route.

Mr. Allen: I am saying the same thing. It is fine to have disclosure and to say where money is going but that can become a handicap, in the absence of limits, to those depending on the legitimate support of friends and neighbours. Such people may not match the resources of those who are trying to buy their way into power, which has happened in the past.

Mr. Kelleher: This needs to be debated because the system is not functioning as it stands. If one has a rough "guesstimate" as to when a general election will be held there is phenomenal spending in some constituencies prior to the date of the introduction of spending limits. We must acknowledge and address this.

Before the last change normal constituency business such as leaflet drops were considered a cost incurred. The amendment changed that but under the original Act any spending between elections was an election cost incurred. We now have a situation where there is a free-for-all before the election is called. This has to be addressed, as there should be a level playing field for all elections.

Mr. Cullen: This is a very interesting point. I am aware the Attorney General passed me an interesting decision recently regarding a constitutional case in America which might have a resonance for us, not that their Constitution overlays ours. A case was won on the basis that any individual or organisation is entitled, inalienably, to support someone if they want and that support cannot be limited. It was very interesting. One can guess which lobby it was - the gun lobby - but that is the other side of the coin. I am not being argumentative but just giving my thoughts as this has some resonance with our Constitution. It might not be possible to limit freedom of expression to the degree we might have thought. If the IFA or any lobby group decided to support a particular candidate, under the Constitution is it open to it, to limit the support it might want to give? Perhaps it is. The United States had been operating under a different set of rules up to the case being taken and to the big surprise of everyone the case was won. I take the point and I will come back to it.

Chairman: Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Allen: I came here with the intention of pressing it to a division. I think the Minister is sympathetic to the idea.

Amendment put and declared lost.

SECTION 8.

Question, "That section 8 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.

Schedule agreed to.

TITLE.

Mr. Gilmore: I move amendment No. 28:

In page 3, line 5, after "TO" to insert "AMEND THE LOCAL ELECTIONS REGULATIONS 1995 TO".

This was consequential on the amendments I proposed earlier, which, as the Minister said, would have required amendment of the election regulations. Does the Minister consider it might be needed anyway, given the changes to local election regulations contained in the Bill?

Mr. Cullen: I raised this point with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the advice I received indicates it is not necessary to explicitly mention the amendment to the regulations in question in the title. Furthermore that advice clarified that while the amendment to the regulations is important enough to warrant it being done by primary rather than by secondary legislation as is the case here, the matter can be said to be adequately catered for within the scope of the existing title, specifically that part of the title which states "AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS", which is what we do with all legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Message to Dáil.

Chairman: In accordance with Standing Order 85, the following message will be sent to the Dáil:

The Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government has completed its consideration of the Local Government Bill 2003 and has made an amendment thereto.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's session. I thank the members of the committee for their participation. They can go home happy in the knowledge they have carried out their political duties and that I will not prevent them from fulfilling their religious obligations later in the day.

The select committee adjourned at 1.04 p.m. sine die.

Next | Up | Previous